,/" 

t  <r-Li 


:. 


/ 

n  Y \i 


/  ^> 


) /  / 

/" 

"V.rdxZ./M  V  ^_  .  A/<  / 


.. 


''*'.-*.  •        '  .         X/ 


'  -'  -v'-'  7-  *          . 


• 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


The  Lord's  Return  and  Kindred  Truth. 

Fifth  edition.     Cloth,  217  pages,  $1. 

"We  know  of  no  work  better  suited  to  place  in  the  hands 
of  one  who  has  not  made  up  his  mind  upon  this  most  impor- 
tant topic." — Episcopal  Recorder. 

' '  Prepared  with  a  reverent  and  prayerful  spirit.  It  is  cer- 
tainly an  able  presentation  of  the  views  of  those  who  expect 
a  premillennial  advent  of  Jesus  the  Christ." — The  Interior. 


Furnishing  for  Workers. 


7Oth  Thousand.  It  is  bound  in  full  flexible  leather  binding, 
has  118  pages,  can  be  carried  in  the  pocket  without  incon- 
venience, and  is  only  25  cents  per  copy. 

A  prominent  business  man  said  of  it  : 

"  I  would  not  take  five  hundred  dollars  for  the  copy  I  have 
if  I  could  not  get  another." 

"Just  the  book  to  cany  in  the  pocket,  giving  at  a  bird's- 
eye  glance  the  passages  of  Scripture  needed  to  meet  an 
almost  endless  series  of  questions,  objections,  etc.,  which  one 
constantly  hears." — Book  Record,  New  York." 


THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

vs. 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICS 


L.  W.  MUNHALL,  M.A.,  D.D. 

EVANGELIST 


THIRD   EDITION 
REVISED   AND   ENLARGED 


NEW  YORK:    HUNT  &   EATON 

CINCINNATI :   CRANSTON  &  CURTS 

1896 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1896,  by 

L.   W.   MUNHALL, 

In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED. 


TO 

MARY  THOMAS  MUNHALL, 
MY  WIFE; 

A   FAITHFUL    COMPANION;    A    DEVOTED    MOTHER;    A    CON- 
SISTENT CHRISTIAN;    A  WOMANLY  WOMAN;    AND  A 

SOURCE     OF     UNFAILING    ENCOURAGEMENT 
£K     MY    LABORS    FOR    CHRIST,   THIS 
VOLUME  IS  MOST  AFFECTION- 
ATELY    DEDICATED. 

t.  W.   MUNHALL. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  WHO  ARE  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS? 7 

II.  WHO  ARE  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS? 12 

III.  INSPIRATION 19 

IV.  INSPIRATION  (Continued) 30 

V.  THE  BIBLE  AS  A  LITERARY  WORK 41 

VI.  THE  BIBLE  AND  SCIENCE 55 

VII.  THE  ETHICS  OF  THE  BIBLE 68 

VIII.  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  THE  BIBLE 79 

IX.  THE  MIRACLE  OF  THE  BIBLE 86 

SUPPLEMENTAL   DISCUSSION. 

X.  THE  PENTATEUCH 99 

XI.  JOB 108 

XII.  THE  PSALMS 115 

XIII.  ISAIAH 136 

XIV.  DANIEL 150 

XV.  ESTHER...    167 

XVI.  WORK  OF  THE  CRITICS  COMPARED 175 

XVII.  SCHOLARSHIP 207 

XVIII.  CONTROVERSY 217 

XIX.  SOME  NOTEWORTHY  TESTIMONIES 221 

XX.  THE  JEW  AND  THE  BIBLE 247 


INTRODUCTION. 


That  which  is  said  against  the  Bible  will  travel 
ten  times  faster  and  go  a  great  ways  further  than  that 
which  is  said  in  its  favor.  The  secular  newspaper 
press  of  the  country  is  largely  responsible  for  this. 
As  a  class,  the  managers  of  our  great  dailies  are 
either  in  sympathy  with  skepticism,  or  they  think 
that  which  is  said  against  the  Bible  is  more  legitimate 
news  than  that  which  is  said  in  its  hehalf.  Hence, 
the  preacher  who  seeks  to  undermine  the  "  Old 
Faith,"  stands  a  far  better  chance  of  being  reported, 
and  having  his  sermons  printed,  than  one  who  is 
loyal  to  the  Word  of  God. 

Just  now  a  great  deal  is  being  said  by  these  papers 
favorably  to  the  "  Higher  Criticism."  They  pub- 
lish little  or  nothing  on  the  other  side ;  and  fre- 
quently charge  those  who  write  and  speak  against  the 
"  Higher  Criticism  "  with  indulging  in  personalities, 
as  though  all  courtesy  and  politeness  belonged  to 
the  "  Higher  Critics,"  in  this  discussion. 

There  are  religious  papers  of  pronounced  unortho- 
dox views,  and  also  some  with  liberalistic  tenden- 
cies, to  which  the  same  criticism  may  be  justly 
applied. 

Then  many  of  the  so-called  "  Higher  Critics"  are 
zealous  and  noisy,  and  are  pushing  their  opinions 
and  views  into  notice  on  all  possible  occasions. 

(5) 


6  INTRODUCTION, 

Then,  too,  many  of  them  are  pursuing  the  same 
course  as  the  Unitarians  and  Universalists  in  the 
controversies  of  twenty-five  years  ago,  by  declar- 
ing "  Scholarship  is  against  the  orthodox  belief ;  " 
"  No  cultured  person  believes  the  Bible  to  be  iner- 
rant ; "  "  We  have  outgrown  the  faith  of  the 
Fathers  ; "  "  The  world  is  moving,"  etc.,  etc. 

Now,  because  of  these  things,  the  faith  and  confi- 
dence of  many  are  shaken;  for  the  many,  in  the 
church  of  God,  have  not  the  time,  as  some  have  not 
the  ability,  to  go  deeply  into  these  matters.  The 
object  of  this  volume  is  to  help  such  people — the 
many — that  they  be  not  "  Tossed  to  and  fro  and 
carried  about  *  *  *  by  the  sleight  of  men,  in 
craftiness,  after  the  wiles  of  error ;  "  that  they  may 
be  "  Rooted  and  builded  up  in  Him  and  stablished 
by  faith  ;  "  and  "  Ready  always  to  give  answer  to 
every  man  that  asketh  a  reason  concerning  the  hope 
that  is  in  them." 

No  one  can  be  more  sensible  than  the  author,  of 
the  imperfect  character  of  this  work.  It  has  been 
written  while  absent  from  home,  while  holding  from 
two  to  four  meetings  a  day,  and  burdened  with  a 
large  correspondence  and  much  other  work.  But 
the  work  has  been  gladly  and  prayerfully  done,  with 
a  great  desire  that  it  may  be  honored  of  God  in 
accomplishing  much  good,  to  the  glory  of  His  grace. 

L.  W.  M. 

GERMANTOWN,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  November,  1891. 


HIGHEST  CRITICS 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

WHO  ARE  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS  t 

S 
^>iThe  Highest  Critics   are  the  one   who  spake  as 

*  "Never  man  *  *  *  Spake,"  Jesus  Christ,  "The 
Son  of  the  Living  God,"  and  He  who  was  sent  to 
"Guide  you  into  all  the  truth,"  the  Paraclete,  the 
Holy  Spirit.  These  Divine  Persons  are  possessed  of 
infinite  attributes.  All  Christians  so  believe.  There- 
fore, in  the  presence  of  an  explicit  statement  as  to 
the  character  of  the  Bible,  or  the  editorship  of  the 
same,  or  any  portion  thereof,  by  either  of  these 
Persons,  all  reverent  souls  bow  acquiescently  and 
receive  the  same  with  unquestioning  faith. 

It  is  not  thinkable  that  they  would  declare  a  lie 
was  the  truth.  I  cannot  imagine  that  they  would 
perpetuate  an  untruth  as  truth,  because  it  was  held 
traditionally  by  the  Jews.  It  is  monstrous  to  believe 
that  they  would  condone  a  fraud.  They  are  of  the 
truth,  they  are  "  the  truth,"  and  "  no  lie  is  of  the 
truth."  If  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,  or 
any  portion  of  it,  and  the  Highest  Critics  declare  he 

(7) 


8  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


id,  it  would  be  a  lie.     It  would  be  none  the  less  a 
even  though  the  Jews  held,  traditionally,  that 
Moses  was  the  author  of  these  books.     The  testi- 
^  \mony  of  the  Highest  Critics  is  absolutely,  unerring- 
\\ly  and  eternally  true,  and  he  who  hesitates  to  receive 
[  Vjt,  as  against  all  other  testimonies,  is  disloyal  to  the 
J§  truth,  and  will  be  "  Tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried 
about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of 
men."     Eph.  4  :  14. 

There,  are,  however,  not  a  few  in  the  churches  who 
not  only  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Highest  Critics,  but,  as  between  their  testimony  and 
that  of  the  Higher  Critics,  they  accept  the  latter. 

In  a  recent  meeting  of  pastors  of  a  certain  so-called 
rthodox    denomination    in   a  city  not  a  thousand 
I*  '^Smiles  from  the  capital  of  this  country,   the  gentle- 
:    man  who  was  addressing  the  meeting   inquired  "If 
'   Moses  did  not  write  this,  why  did  Jesus  Christ  say 
\  he  did  ?  "     A  pastor  in  the  audience  replied  :     "  Be- 
cause He  did  not  know  any  better."    My  honest  judg- 
ment is  that  such  a  statement  was  blasphemous. 

Canon  Driver  tells  us,  "  You  had  better  not  make 
an  issue  between  the  critics  and  Christ,  lest  He,  too, 
should  go  down  before  them."  This  statement  is 
very  little  better  than  the  former.  And  yet,  these 
men  but  state  the  logical  outcome  of  any  argument 
against  the  inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures,  that  will  not 
at  once  give  place  to  the  unequivocal  testimony  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  contrariwise. 

Some  of  the  "  Higher"  Critics  set  aside  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Highest  Critics  for  three  reasons,  viz.: 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS. 


First.  They  say :  "  When  Jesus  Christ  began 
His  ministry,  He  found  the  "  Traditional  views  of 
the  matters  under  discussion,  popularly  held  by  the 
Jews.  It  was  not  necessary  that  He  should  combat 
them  ;  and  it  would,  therefore,  have  been  unwise  for 
Him  to  do  so.  So  He  passed  them  by  as  not 
belonging  to  His  plans  and  work."  But  this  is  just 
what  He  did  not  do.  He  gave  them  the  most  posi- 
tive indorsement  by  declaring  them  to  be  correct, 
as  we  shall  presently  see. 

Second.  They  say :  "  Jesus  and  His  Apostles 
were  not  critics.  They  were  teachers  of  great  ethi- 
cal principles,  and  their  work  was  to  promulgate 
these  and  organize  the  church."  In  "  The  Hebraica" 
of  April,  1889,  the  case  is  thus  stated:  "  Christ  did 
not  meddle  with  critical  questions  connected  with 
the  Old  Testament,  as  His  mission  was  of  another 
character.  He  simply  aquiesced  in  the  current  views 
of  such  questions,  as  long  as  they  did  not  affect  the 
nature  of  that  mission.  *  *  *  In  regard  to 
the  Apostles,  we  cannot,  in  all  cases,  adopt  their 
interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament,  since  they 
were  not  infallible."  It  is  true  that,  in  the  sense 
the  Higher  Critic  is  a  critic,  they  were  not,  but  it  is 
providentially  and  strikingly  true  that  they  did 
express  themselves  very  fully  and  clearly  upon  these 
very  matters  in  dispute.  To  impeach  their  testi- 
mony upon  the  assumption  that  they  were  not 
critics  is  most  audacious. 

The  learned  Canon  Liddon  says  :     "  The  trustworthiness  ot 
the  Old  Testament  is,  in  fact,  inseparable  from  the  trustworthi- 


10  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

ness  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and,  if  we  believe  that  He  is  the 
true  Light  of  the  world,  we  shall  resolutely  close  our  ears 
against  any  suggestions  of  the  falsehood  of  those  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures which  have  received  the  stamp  of  His  Divine  authority." 

Third.  They  say :  "  The  Divine  nature  in  Jesus 
was  dominated  by  the  human  during  His  earthly  life, 
and,  therefore,  it  is  unreasonable  to  believe  His 
teachings  to  be  infallible."  They  call  attention  to 
Luke  2  :  52,  where  it  is  said  :  "And  Jesus  advanced 
in  wisdom  and  stature  "  (R.  V.)  ;  "  which,"  they  say, 
"  proves  conclusively  that  the  Divine  nature  in  Him 
was  subjected  to  the  human ;  that  He  did  not  always 
possess  infinite  wisdom."  As  touching  His  physical 
body,  we  know  that  it  did  "  advance  "  (grow)  as 
the  bodies  of  other  boys.  Identified  with  His 
human  body  was,  doubtless,  a  human  mind,  suscep- 
tible of  development,  and,  as  body  and  mind  grew, 
He  became  wiser,  without  doubt,  humanly  speaking. 
That  His  humanity  did  again  and  again  manifest 
itself  we  have  abundant  evidence.  But,  He  never 
taught  as  a  man.  His  words  clearly  prove  this, 
"  Never  man  so  spake."  God  said  of  Him,  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  Him,  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and 
might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the 
Lord  "  (Isa.  1 1  :  1 ,  2) ;  and,  "  In  Whom  are  all  the 
treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  hidden"  (Col. 
2  :  3).  It  is  therefore  not  astonishing  that  the  "  Doc- 
tors" (Teachers)  "That  heard  Him  were  amazed  at 
His  understanding  and  His  answers  "  (Luke  2  147), 
when  He  was  but  twelve  years  old. 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  11 

They  also  call  attention  to  what  He  said  when 
His  disciples' asked  Him,  "Tell  us  when  shall  these 
things  be  ?  and  what  shall  be  the  sign  of  Thy  com- 
ing, and  of  the  end  of  the  world  ?  "  His  reply,  in 
part,  was,  "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no 
one,  not  even  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son, 
but  the  Father  only"  (Matt.  24 :  36). 

Let  it  here  be  noted,  however,  that  many  author- 
ities, some  ancient,  omit  "  Neither  the  Son,"  but,  if 
these  words  really  belong  there,  He  simply  said,  as 
the  Divine  Teacher,  that  Jesus  the  man,  humanly 
speaking,  did  not  know ;  for  as  touching  His  Divin- 
ity He  said,  at  another  time,  "  I  and  the  Father  are 
one,"  therefore,  as  Deity,  He  did  know. 

But  these  objections  against  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  cannot  stand,  nor  those  against  the  testimony 
of  the  Apostles,  for  they  wrote  by  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  their  testimony,  therefore,  was  infal- 
lible. 

Along  with  the  criticisms  of  the  Highest  Critics,  I 
wish,  also  to  emphasize  certain  self-evident  things, 
belonging  properly  to  this  discussion,  as  possessing 
far  greater  value  than  the  opinions  and  conjectures 
of  the  most  scholarly  of  men.  By  comparisons  that 
may  be  drawn  ;  by  results  that  are  known  ;  by  many 
things  that  are  as  evident  as  the  light  of  day,  the 
eternal  truth  and  unity  of  the  Bible  is  demonstrated. 


THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


HAPTER  II. 

WHO      RE  THE   HIGHER  CRITICS  ?   /* 


Presumably  they  are  certain  learned  arid  devout 
men,  who  gave,  or  are  giving  their  time  almost 
wholly  to  an  honest,  reverent  and  critical  examina- 
tion of  the  text  of  the  Scriptures.  From  such  crit- 
ics the  Church  of  God  has  nothing  to  fear,  and,  in- 
deed, for  that  matter,  from  any  other  kind.  But  it 
is  sadly  true,  that  they  are  not  all  of  that  sort,  as 
we  shall  see. 

The  first  criticism  bearing  upon  the  Pentateuch, 
of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  was  in  the  twelfth 
century  by  one  Aben  Ezra,  a  Jew.  He  was  followed 
by  Carlstadt,  a  co-temporary  and  co-laborer  of 
Luther.  Hobbs,  the  English  skeptic,  was  conspicu- 
ous in  the  seventeenth  century  for  his  criticisnVof  these 
books.  Their  work  met  with  little  favor  and  made 
but  little  headway,  even  though  during  these  years, 
beliefs  were  changing  and  forming.  Toward  the 
close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Benedict  De 
Spinoza,  a  most  learned  Jew,  openly  denied  the  Mo- 
saic Editorship  of  the  Pentateuchal  Books,  and  cred- 
ited the  work  to  Ezra  the  Scribe.  Less  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  one  Jean  Astruc,  a 
Frenchman  and  Roman  Catholic,  formulated  what 
is  called  the  "  Documentary  Hypothesis,  "  though 
this  is  attributed,  by  some,  to  Eichorn.  Astruc 
thought  he  saw  in  Genesis  evidences  of  two  distinct 
documents.  In  some  places  the  Hebrew  word 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  13 

Elohim  (God)  was  used  ;  in  others,  the  word  Jeho- 
vah (Lord).  He  concluded  that  there  must  have 
been  two  writers.  Therefore,  Moses  was  not  the 
writer  but  the  compiler  of  this  book. 

Then  some  German  critics  taught  that  the  entire 
Pentateuch  was  a  sort  of  "  crazy  quilt  "arrangement 
of  a  lot  of  anonymous  documents  that  Moses  found 
lying  around  loose,  and  put  together.  This  is  called 
the  "Fragmentary  Theory."  The  striking  and 
remarkable  unity  of  these  books  compelled  an  aban- 
donment of  this  theory. 

The  "  Edition  Theory "  was  the  next  in  order. 
The  Pentateuch  was  amended  so  as  to  include  the 
book  of  Joshua  and,  of  course,  christened  "  The 
Hexateuch."  The  Editor  is  the  "  great  unknown  "  : 
but  there  was  one,  of  that  they  were  certain  ;  and  he, 
having  the  original  Elohist  document  before  him,  so 
amended  it,  and  added  to  it  from  materials  at  hand, 
that  we  have  the — "  The  Hexateuch." 

The  German  scholar,  Hupfeld,  in  1853,  formulated 
the  "  Compilation  Theory."  He  not  only  has  an 
Elohist  writer  and  Editor,  but  a  Jahvist  and  a  sec- 
ond Elohist ;  and  now  his  pupils  have  still  another 
called  the  "  Priestly  Elohist,"  and  many  others  yet 
to  be  heard  from.  His  followers  insist  that  the 
Hexateuchal  Books  were  not  written  and  put  into 
their  present  form  until  after  the  return  of  the 
Children  of  Israel  from  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
about  B.  C.  444;  and  that  Moses,  therefore,  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  authorship  or  edi- 
torship of  the  Pentateuch.  They  also  teach  that 


14  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Isaiah  did  not  write  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters 
of  the  Prophecy  bearing  his  name  ;  that  David  wrote 
few  or  none  of  the  Psalms  ;  that  Job  and  Jonah  are 
unhistorical  ;  and  that  Esther  and  Daniel  are  unin- 
spired and  fictitious. 

In  1836  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  of  Tubingen, 
in  Wurtenburg,  came  to  the  front  as  leader  of  the 
Destructionists,  and,  in  a  most  audacious  and  inso- 
lent manner,  attacked  the  integrity  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  best  (worst)  this  destructive  school  could  do 
was  to  conclude  that  the  first  three  Gospels  were 
written  shortly  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Romans,  under  Titus.  That  the  Gospel  of  John, 
the  Revelation  and  the  Epistles  of  John  were  writ- 
ten by  an  immediate  disciple  of  John.  That  the 
Acts  were  suspected  of  being  a  partisan  version  of 
history.  That  Romans,  First  and  Second  Corinth- 
ians, Galatians  and  Philippians  are  genuine.  Colos- 
sians,.  First  Thessalonians  and  Philemon  were  re- 
garded with  a  preponderance  of  favorable  judgment. 
Hebrews  and  First  Peter  were  recognized  as  be- 
longing to  the  first  century.  James  was  treated  as 
anonymous  and  an  early  literary  fragment  of  Jew- 
ish Christianity.  Ephesians,  Second  Thessalonians, 
First  and  Second  Timothy,  Titus,  Jude  and  Second 
Peter,  or  a  total  of  eight  books  out  of  twenty-seven, 
or  fifteen  pages  out  of  a  total  of  two  hundred  and 
eight,  they  shelved,  or  thought  they  did.  But  did 
they? 

The  chief  result  of  the  labors  of  these  men  and 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  15 

their  followers  was  to  unspiritualize  the  evangelical 
churches  in  Germany,  Switzerland  and  Holland,  in 
large  measure,  and  give  them  over  to  Rationaliz- 
ing. Otherwise,  their  labors  were  for  naught.  But 
the  New  Testament  still  remains  in  its  integrity, 
and  is  believed  and  honored  by  twice  as  many  intel- 
ligent and  godly  people  as  in  Baur's  day. 

At  the  present  time  the  Old  Testament  is  the  sub- 
ject of  criticism.  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  on  "  The 
Continent ;"  Robertson  and  George  Adam  Smith 
and  others  in  England  and  Scotland ;  and  Profs. 
Briggs  and  Harper  in  this  country,  are  considered 
leaders  of  the  crusade  against  the  integrity  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

They,  like  former  and  older  critics,  may  make 
notoriety  for  themselves  and  a  stir  in  the  churches ; 
but  fifty  years  hence  their  influence  will  be  no  more 
felt  than  that  of  the  Tubingen  school,  and  the  Old 
Testament  will  still  remain  in  all  its  present  strength 
and  beauty,  potential  for  greater  good  than  ever  be- 
fore. 

The  present  agitation  enables  many  enemies  of 
the  Bible  to  come  to  the  front.  Therefore  we  ought 
to  be  careful  to  ascertain  who  it  is  that  speaks  and 
writes. 

Some  apparently  only  seek  to  destroy  the  faith  of 
the  church  in  the  Bible  as  an  infallible  guide.  They 
parade  and  magnify  the  apparent  discrepancies  and 
errors,  and  seldom,  if  ever,  give  the  reconciliations 
and  verifications  that  have  been  clearly  proven. 
Nor  do  they  point  out  the  proofs  of  the  integrity 


16  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

and  inerrability  of  the  Scriptures.  Their  efforts 
seem  to  be  to  discredit  them.  These  are  dishonest 
critics — destructionists. 

He  who  says  "  The  Bible  is  no  better  than  a  'Mass 
Book'  for  stopping  a  bullet ;  and  not  as  good  as 
'Holy  Water'  for  putting  out  a  fire,"  is  an  irrever- 
ent critic ;  be  he  never  so  religious,  honest  and 
scholarly.  He  is  sure  to  play  into  the  hands  of  the 
enemies  of  God's  Word. 

The  unspiritual  critic  is  more  likely  to  be  wrong 
than  right  in  his  conclusions.  The  man  who  delib- 
erately addresses  himself  to  the  work  of  criticising 
the  Bible,  as  he  would  criticise  any  other  book,  with- 
out its  subtle  and  transforming  power  in  his  heart 
and  life,  and  depending  upon  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
was  sent  to  guide  us  into  all  truth  (see  John  16:  13) 
to  help  him,  will  most  surely  become  entangled  in 
the  intricacies  of  his  own  thoughts,  be  he  the  most 
learned  of  men.  God's  Word  says :  "  Now  the  nat- 
ural man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  spirit  of 
God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  and  he  can- 
not know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  judged 
(or  examined)."  I  Cor.  2 : 14.  And  this  is  true  for 
the  simple  reason  that  God's  thoughts  are  as  much 
higher  than  man's  as  the  heaven  is  above  the  earth. 
Seelsa.  55  19. 

There  is  not  a  man  in  the  pulpits  of  orthodox 
Christendom,  or  in  a  theological  or  editorial  chair, 
who  is  unscriptural  in  the  doctrines  of  inspiration, 
original  sinfulness,  atonement,  repentance,  faith,  jus- 
tification, regeneration  and  the  new  birth,  sanctifica- 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  17 

tion,  resurrection,  judgment  and  final  retribution  for 
unbelievers — and  there  are  hundreds  of  such — who 
does  not  assume  to  be  a  "  Higher  Critic,"  or,  in 
hearty  sympathy  with  any  and  every  criticism  of 
the  "  Higher  Critics,"  that  in  any  sense  questions 
the  integrity  of  the  Bible.  I  personally  know  scores 
of  these  gentlemen.  They  do  not  preach  the  "gos- 
pel of  God,"  because  they  do  not  believe  it.  They 
do  not  "  Reprove,  rebuke,  exhort  with  all  long  suf- 
fering and  teaching."  Their  pulpits  are  but  "  lecture 
platforms,"  and  their  churches  but  little  if  any  bet- 
ter than  social  clubs  for  the  promotion  of  some 
other  things  than  the  king's  business.  Sinners  do 
not  throng  their  altars  inquiring  the  way  of  life  and 
salvation,  and  the  work  appointed  unto  the  church 
by  Jesus  Christ  is  not  done  by  them.  These  are  the 
men  who,  as  a  rule,  are  now  most  vehement  and 
noisy  in  urging  the  claims  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

Therefore  we  need  to  be  careful  to  ascertain  who 
is  the  "  Higher  Critic  "  we  are  following.  There  be 
blind  leaders  of  the  blind.  And  if  the  blind  lead 
the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch.  (Matt.  15  : 
14.) 

We  ought  also,  always  to  remember  that  the 
wisest  and  most  learned  man  is  a  fallible  being,  can 
only  "  know  in  part,"  and  "  see  through  a  glass 
darkly."  "  Therefore  we  should  never  try  to  har- 
monize the  plain  teachings  of  the  Bible  with  the 
views  or  opinions  of  men ;  but  if  we  attempt  any 
reconciliation,  let  it  be  of  men's  views  to  the  Word 
of  God  ;  and,  if  we  fail,  let  us  conclude  that  these 


18  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

men  are  mistaken  in  their  conclusions.  "  Let  God 
be  found  true,  but  every  man  a  liar.  "  (Rom,  3  : 4.) 
The  creeds  of  Christendom  agree  that  "  The  Bible  is 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 
Therefore,  let  us  ascertain  if  the  "  Higher  Critics" 
agree  with  the  Highest.  If  they  do,  let  us  thankfully 
accept  their  help.  If  not,  let  us  pass  them  by. 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  19 

CHAPTER  III. 

INSPIRATION. 

The  so  called  "  Higher  Critics,"  to  a  man,  so  far  as 
I  know,  disbelieve  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration, 
although  for  more  than  one  thousand  years  the 
Church  entertained  no  other  view.  Prof.  B.  B.  War- 
field,  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  said  in  an 
article  on  "  The  Westminster  Doctrine  of  Inspira- 
tion," recently  published  in  the  New  York  Inde- 
pendent. "  Doubtless  enough  has  been  said  to 
show  that  the  confession  teaches  precisely  the  doc- 
trine which  is  taught  in  the  private  writings  of  the 
framers,  which  was  also  the  general  Protestant 
doctrine  of  the  time,  and  not  of  that  time  only  or 
of  the  Protestants  only ;  for  despite  the  contrary 
assertion  that  has  recently  become  tolerably  current 
essentially  this  doctrine  of  inspiration  has  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  all  ages  and  of  all 
names." 

They  have  various  theories  of  inspiration  :  Some 
say,  "  The  thoughts  only  of  the  penmen  were 
inspired."  Some  say,  "  They  were  only  partially 
inspired."  But  they  are  very  indefinite  in  their 
statements  of  the  extent  of  this  inspiration.  Some 
say,  "  There  were  different  degrees  of  inspiration," 
and  they  use  the  difference  between  illumination 
and  inspiration  to  prove  it.  Some  say,  "At  one 
time  they  were  inspired  in  the  supervision  of  the 
work  they  did ; "  at  another,  "  In  the  view  they 


20  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

took  of  the  work  they  were  called  upon  to  do  ;  "  and 
at  another,  "In  directing  the  work."  But  in  all 
these  views  they  are  at  sea,  and  leave  all  who  trust 
to  their  pilotage  at  sea  as  to  the  exact  character 
and  limitations  of  inspiration.  They  sometimes 
talk  of  "  Dynamic  "  inspiration,  but  their  efforts  to 
explain  what  they  mean  by  this  term  are  exceed- 
ingly vague  and  misty.  But  the  popular  and  current 
theory  now  is  that  the  "  Concept  "  is  inspired.  But 
no  one  attempts  to  tell  what  the  "  Concept "  is ; 
indeed,  I  doubt  if  any  of  these  critics  know. 

The  one  thing  they  are  emphatic  about  and  united 
upon  is,  that  the  Bible  is  not  verbally  inspired. 
The  noisy  ones  will  tell  you  that  "  No  scholar 
believes  in  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration."  In 
this  they  bear  false  witness.  Another  expression 
in  common  use  among  them  is  this  :  "  Such  belief 
drives  men  into  infidelity ! "  And  yet  not  one  of 
them  ever  knew  of  a  case.  This  class,  with  as  much 
care  and  evident  satsifaction  as  an  infidel,  hunts  out 
the  apparent  contradictions  and  errors  in  the  author- 
ized and  revised  versions  of  the  Bible,  and  holding 
them  up  to  the  public  gaze  exultingly  declare : 
"  Here  is  conclusive  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  not 
verbally  inspired."  Many  of  these  gentlemen  are  dis- 
honest because,  First,  they  know  that  most  of  these 
apparent  errors  and  contradictions  were  long  ago 
satisfactorily  answered,  even  to  the  silencing  of  infi- 
del scoffers  ;  and,  Second,  they  know  that  no  one 
believes  that  the  transcribers,  translators,  and  re- 
visers were  inspired.  The  doctrine  of  verbal  inspira- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  21 

tion  is  simply  this:  The  original  writings,  ipsis- 
sima  verba,  came  through  the  penmen  direct  from 
God  ;  and  these  gentlemen  are  only  throwing  dust 
into  the  air  when  they  rail  against  verbal  inspiration 
and  attempt  to  disprove  it  by  pointing  out  the 
apparent  errors  and  discrepancies  of  the  authorized 
and  revised  texts. 

But  some  say,  "  Since  we  do  not  have  the  original 
writings,  what  is  the  use  of  insisting  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  verbal  inspiration  ?  "  I  answer,  there  are 
two  sufficient  reasons :  First.  If  the  original  writ- 
ings were  not  inspired  of  God  verbally,  then  we 
have  no  Word  of  God.  Second.  Is  there  no  differ- 
ence between  an  inexact  copy  of  an  inerrable  record 
and  a  faulty  copy  of  an  uncertain  record  ?  I  think 
there  is.  I  rejoice  that,  notwithstanding  the  "  Higher 
Critics  "  long  ago  discovered,  or  they  thought  they  did, 
30,000  various  readings  in  the  different  manuscripts, 
yet,  as  Cardinal  Wiseman  says,  "  In  all  this  mass, 
although  every  attainable  source  has  been  exhausted ; 
although  the  fathers  of  every  age  have  been  gleaned 
for  their  readings ;  although  the  versions  of  every 
nation,  Arabic,  Syriac,  Coptic,  Armenian  and  Ethi- 
opian, have  been  ransacked  for  their  renderings ; 
although  manuscripts  of  every  age,  from  the  six- 
teenth century  upwards  to  the  third,  and  of  every 
country,  have  been  again  and  again  visited  by  indus- 
trious swarms  to  rifle  them  of  their  treasures; 
although,  having  exhausted  the  stores  of  the  West, 
critics  have  traveled,  like  naturalists  into  distant 
lands,  to  discover  new  specimens,  have  visited,  like 


THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


Scholz  or  Sebastian,  the  recesses  of  Mount  Athos, 
or  the  unexplored  libraries  of  the  Egyptian  and 
Syrian  deserts,  yet  has  nothing  been  discovered,  no, 
not  one  single  various  reading,  which  can  throw 
doubt  upon  any  passage  before  considered  certain 
or  decisive  in  favor  of  any  important  doctrine, 
*  *  *  These  various  readings,  almost  without 
an  exception,  leave  untouched  the  essential  parts  of 
any  sentence,  and  only  interfere  with  points  of  sec- 
ondary importance,  the  insertion  or  omission  of  an 
article  or  conjunction,  the  more  accurate  grammatical 
construction,  or  the  forms  rather  than  the  substance 
of  words." 

The  skeptics  have  been  discomfited  in  every  as- 
sault at  this  point.  The  more  recent  investigations 
of  Tregelles,  Tischendorf,  and  other  most  learned 
and  able  critics,  have  made  the  intrenched  position 
held  by  the  orthodox  church  through  the  ages,  im- 
pregnable ;  so  that  we  can  say  with  the  learned 
Gaussen,  "  Not  only  was  the  Scripture  inspired  on 
the  day  God  caused  it  to  be  written,  but  that  we 
possess  this  Word  inspired  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago;  and  that  we  may,  while  holding  our  sacred  text 
in  one  hand,  and  in  the  other  all  the  readings  col- 
lected by  the  learned  in  seven  hundred  manuscripts, 
exclaim  with  thankfulness,  I  hold  in  my  hands  my 
Father's  Testament,  the  eternal  word  of  my  God  !  " 
There  is  no  doubt  in  my  own  mind  but  that  many 
of  the  Transcribers,  Translators,  and  Revisers  had  a 
large  measure  of  illumination  in  doing  their  work. 
This  is  clearly  seen  in  the  pureness  of  the  texts  we 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  23 

have.  It  surely  would  have  been  otherwise  had  not 
God  vouchsafed  guidance  and  help,  in  the  important 
work  of  transmitting  His  Word  to  succeeding  genera- 
tions. 

God  is  an  intelligent  Being.  He  has  always  treat- 
ed man  as  a  sentient  and  reasoning  creature.  In  the 
Bible  we  have  a  revelation,  to  man,  of  God's  mind 
and  purposes  concerning  certain  things.  But  the 
Bible  is  composed  of  words.  These  words  express 
thoughts.  It  is  not  possible  to  express  thoughts 
apart  from  words,  or  even  to  entertain  them.  If 
verbal  inspiration  is  not  true,  then  the  Bible  is  not 
from  God  at  all :  it  is  a  human  composition. 

At  the  last  analysis,  any  doctrine  of  inspiration 
save  verbal,  means  a  denial  of  the  supernaturalness 
of  the  Bible.  This  is  logically  inevitable.  Hence 
those  who  deny  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  that  are  unpleasant  to  the  natural  man,  are 
most  determined  and  sometimes  savage  in  their 
efforts  to  destroy  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  the  doc- 
trine of  verbal  inspiration.  This,  to  my  mind,  is 
strikingly  significant. 

There  are  those,  it  is  true,  who  are  firm  believers 
in  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  grace,  who  yet 
deny  the  fact  of  verbal  inspiration,  but  when  these 
gentlemen  talk  about  inspiration  they  mean  illumi- 
nation. All  men  have  illumination.  "  There  is  a 
light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world."  But  few  men  have  ever  been  inspired. 
Here  is  a  case  of  inspiration  :  "  Ah  !  Lord  God ! 
behold,  I  cannot  speak,  for  I  am  a  child.  But  the 


24  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Lord  said  unto  me,  say  not  I  am  a  child,  for  thou 
shalt  go  to  all  that  I  shall  send  thee,  and  whatsoever 
I  command  thee  thou  shalt  speak.  Be  not  afraid  of 
their  faces,  for  I  am  with  thee  to  deliver  thee,  saith 
the  Lord.  Then  the  Lord  put  forth  his  hand  and 
touched  rny  mouth.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  me, 
Behold,  I  have  put  my  words  in  thy  mouth." 
(Jer.  1:6-9.) 

But  what  say  the  Highest  Critics  on  this  subject? 

Jesus  Christ  said :  "  David  himself  said  in  the 
Holy  Spirit."  (Mark  12  :  36.)  Notice,  He  does  not 
say  David  thought,  but  David  himself  said.  Turn 
to  2  Sam.  23 : 2,  and  we  will  find  additional  informa- 
tion to  this  case.  David  said  :  "  The  spirit  of  the 
Lord  spake  by  me,  and  His  word  was  upon  my 
tongue."  He  did  not  say  "  The  spirit  gave  me 
a  concept,"  or  "  His  thought  was  in  my  mind,"  but, 
"  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me  and  His  word 
was  upon  my  tongue" 

The  Holy  Spirit  said:  "All  scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God."  The  word  rendered  scrip- 
ture in  this  passage  is  grapht.  It  means  writing. 
The  writing  is  composed  of  words.  What  else  is 
this  but  verbal  inspiration? 

But  the  critics  say :  "  The  revised  version  renders 
this  passage.  "  Every  scripture  inspired  of  God  is 
also  profitable."  It  may  appear  presumptuous  in 
me  to  say  so,  but  since  the  learned  men  who  gave 
us  the  Revised  Version  have  not  claimed  infallibility 
for  themselves,  and  this  is  a  free  country,  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  these  gentlemen  have  erred 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS. 


in  this  case,  in  my  humble  judgment.  I  think  so  for 
the  following  reasons :  First.  It  is  tautological. 
Second.  It  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  Greek  syn- 
tax. Bishop  Middleton  challenged  the  production 
of  a  single  instance  in  the  compass  of  the  whole 
Greek  language  where  such  a  violent  divulsion  of 
two  adjectives  connected  and  standing  as  they  are 
in  2  Tim.  3 :  16,  could  be  found  and  justified.  The 
challenge  remains  unanswered.  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith 
attempted  to  produce  an  instance,  but  was  over- 
thrown by  Dr.  S.  P.  Tregelles. 

Third,  The  Greek  fathers  certainly  knew  their 
own  language  better  than  the  Revisers.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  says,  "  The  Apostle  calls  the  Scripture 
inspired  of  God."  Origen  says,  "Every  Scripture  is 
theopneustic,  and  is  profitable."  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
says,  "Every  Scripture  is,  by  Paul,  said  to  be  in- 
spired of  God."  Chrysostom  says,  "Every  Scrip- 
ture is,  by  the  Apostle,  said  to  be  inspired  of  God." 
So  also  say  Theodoret,  Basil  and  Cyril. 

Fourth.  In  I  Tim.  4  :  4,  Paul  says,  "  Every 
creature  of  God  is  good  and  nothing  to  be  refused;" 
and,  in  Heb.  4:  13  we  are  told  that  "All  things  are 
naked  and  opened  (exposed)  to  the  eyes  of  Him 
with  whom  we  have  to  do."  These  two  passages 
are  absolutely  identical  in  form  and  construction  as 
2  Tim.  2  :  16.  The  Revisers  left  these  two  passages 
unchanged.  And  why  ?  Because  if  they  had 
changed  them  as  they  did  2  Tim.  2:16,  they  would 
have  made  absolute  nonsense  of  them  and  a  laughing- 
stock of  themselves. 


26  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Fifth.  The  Revisers  condemned  their  own  ren- 
dering by  putting  the  authorized  text  in  the  margin. 
"  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and 
is  profitable,"  etc.,  is  not  the  equivalent  of  "ALL 
Scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable,"  etc. 

Sixth.  By  the  revised  rendering  each  person  is 
authorized  to  decide  for  him  or  herself  just  what 
Scripture  is  inspired.  This  is  just  the  liberty  many 
of  the  Higher  Critics  take.  They  accept  what  sup- 
ports their  pet  views  and  theories  and  throw  the  rest 
away.  Every  man  becomes  a  law  unto  himself  in 
the  matter. 

Seventh.  The  revised  rendering  has  been  con- 
demned by  a  great  many  of  the  best  scholars  on 
earth.  Bishops  Moberly  and  Wordsworth, 
Archbishop  Trench  and  others  of  the  Revision  Com- 
mittee disclaimed  any  responsibility  for  the  render- 
ing. Dean  Burgon  pronounced  it  the  "  Most 
astonishing  as  well  as  calamitous  literary  blunder  of 
the  age."  The  distinguished  critic,  Dr.  Schrivener, 
calls  it  "  A  blunder  such  as  makes  itself  hopelessly 
condemned."  It  was  condemned  by  Dr.  Tregelles, 
the  only  man  ever  pensioned  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment for  scholarship,  as  it  was  condemned  by  the 
scholars  of  Reformation  times. 

But  for  all  this,  the  Revised  Version  does  not 
materially  change  the  teaching  of  the  text  respect- 
ing  verbal  inspiration  ;  for,  if  it  were  correct,  it  is 
bound  to  the  writings  which  Timothy  had  been 
taught  from  "wee"  childhood,  which  are  declared 
to  be  "  sacred  "  and  "  Able  to  make  *  *  *  wise 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  27 

unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus." 

Of  these  "  Sacred  "  writings  the  Holy  Spirit  says  : 
"  For  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man : 
but  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  (2  Peter  I  :  21.)  The  word  "  Prophecy"  in 
this  passage,  is  not  limited  to  the  foretelling  of 
events.  It  signifies  the  revelation  of  the  mind  of 
God  in  human  language.  It  is  asserted,  unequivo- 
cally, that  certain  men  "  Spake  (not  thought)  from 
God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

We  are  told  in  Luke  24 :  27,  that  Jesus  Christ, 
"  Beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all  the  Prophets 
*  *  *  interpreted  to  them  (the  disciples)  in  all 
the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself."  We 
are  here  informed  that  Moses  and  certain  other  men 
called  Prophets,  humanly  speaking,  were  the  authors 
of  that  which  Timothy  was  instructed  in,  called  the 
"  Holy  Scriptures,"  or  "  Sacred  Writings,"  which 
were  written  and  spoken  of  God  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  some  of  these  books  and  ascer- 
tain what  the  writers  said  concerning  the  matter 
under  consideration.  Ex.  4:10-12:  "And  Moses 
said  unto  the  Lord,  I  am  not  eloquent  (a  man  of 
words),  neither  heretofore  nor  since  thou  hast  spoken 
unto  thy  servant :  for  I  am  slow  of  speech,  and  of  a 
slow  tongue.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Who 
hath  made  man's  mouth  ?  *  *  *  Now  therefore 
go  and  I  will  be  with  thy  mouth,  and  teach  thee  what 
thou  shalt  speak."  Ex.  34:27:  "And  the  Lord 

said  unto  Moses,  write  thou    these  words :  for  after 
3 


28  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant 
with  thee,  and  with  Israel."  Deut.  4 :  2:  "Ye  shall 
not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command  you, 
neither  shall  ye  diminish  from  it."  Deut.  18  :  20: 
"  But  the  prophet  which  shall  speak  a  word  pre- 
sumptuously in  my  name,  which  I  have  not  com- 
manded him  to  speak,  *  *  *  that  prophet  shall 
die." 

In  the  five  books  of  Moses,  in  the  books  called 
historical,  and  books  included  under  the  general  title 
of  the  Psalms,  such  expressions  as  the  following 
occur  hundreds  of  times,  viz :  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord;"  "  The  Lord  said  ;  "  "  The  Lord  spake  ;  "  "  The 
Lord  hath  spoken  ;  "  "  The  Lord  promised  ;  "  "  The 
saying  of  the  Lord  ; "  and  "  The  word  of  the  Lord." 
There  is  no  other  thought  expressed  in  these  books 
concerning  inspiration  than  that  the  writers  spoke 
and  wrote  the  very  words  that  God  gave  them. 

Turning  to  the  books  called  prophetical  we  find 
Isaiah  saying,  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  (Isa.  I : 
10)  ;  and  no  fewer  than  twenty  times  does  he  explic- 
itly declare  that  his  writings  are  the  "  Words  of  the 
Lord."  Almost  one  hundred  times  does  Jeremiah 
say,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me,"  or 
declare  he  was  uttering  the  "  Words  of  the  Lord," 
and  the  "  Word  of  the  Living  God."  Ezekiel  says 
that  his  writings  are  the  "  Words  of  God,"  quite 
sixty  times.  Here  is  a  sample  : — "  Son  of  man,  all 
my  words  that  I  shall  speak  unto  thee  receive  in 
thine  heart,  and  hear  with  thine  ears.  And  go  get 
thee  to  them  of  the  captivity,  unto  the  children  of 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  29 

thy  people,  and  speak  unto  them,  and  tell  them 
thus  saith  the  Lord  God"  (Ezek.  3  :  10,  ii).~  Daniel 
said,  "And  when  I  heard  the  voice  of  His  words" 
(Dan.  x:9).  Hosea  said,  "The  word  of  the  Lord  " 
(Hosea  I  :  i).  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to 
Joel  (Joel  I  :  i).  Amos  said,  "  Hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord"  (Amos  3  :  i).  Obadiah  said,  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God"  (Oba.  i  :  i).  "  The  word  of  the  Lord 
came  unto  Jonah"  (Jon.  i  :  i).  "  The  word  of  the 
Lord  that  came  to  Micah  "  (Micah  i :  i).  Nahum 
said,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord"  (Nah.  1:12).  Habak- 
kuk  wrote,  "  The  Lord  answered  me  and  said " 
(Hab.  2  :  2).  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  which  came 
to  Zephaniah ".  (Zeph.  i  :  i).  "  Came  the  word 
of  the  Lord  to  Haggai  the  prophet"  (Hag.  i  :  i). 
"  Came  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  Zechariah " 
(Zech.  i  :  i).  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  to  Israel  by 
Malachi "  (Mai.  i  :  i).  And  in  this  last  of  the  Old 
Testament  books  is  it  twenty-four  times  said  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord." 


30  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

CHAPTER  IV. 

INSPIRATION  (Continued.) 

When  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
we  find  these  words  of  Jesus :  "  But  when  they 
deliver  you  up,  be  not  anxious  how  or  what  ye  shall 
speak.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of 
your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you."  (Matt.  10  :  19, 
20.)  "And  when  they  lead  you  to  the  judgment, 
and  deliver  you  up,  be  not  anxious  beforehand  what 
ye  shall  speak :  but  whatsoever  shall  be  given  you 
in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye  ;  for  it  is  not  ye  that 
speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Mark  13  :  n.) 
"  And  when  they  bring  you  before  the  synagogues, 
and  the  rulers,  and  the  authorities,  be  not  anxious 
how  or  what  ye  shall  answer,  or  what  ye  shall  say  : 
for  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  that  very 
hour  what  ye  ought  to  say."  (Luke  12  :  11,  12.) 
"  Settle  it  therefore  in  your  hearts,  not  to  meditate 
beforehand  how  to  answer ;  for  I  will  give  you  a 
mouth  and  wisdom,  which  all  your  adversaries  shall 
not  be  able  to  withstand  or  to  gainsay."  (Luke 
21  :  14,  15.)  In  these  passages  we  are  plainly 
taught  that  the  Apostles  and  certain  of  the  disciples 
were  to  be  inspired  to  speak  certain  things.  This 
same  inspiration  included  all  the  disciples  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  for  they  were  all  with  one  accord 
in  one  place.  *  *  *  And  they  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  (Acts 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  31 

2  :  I,  4.)  The  multitude  that  heard  "  Marvelled, 
saying,  Behold,  are  not  all  these  which  speak  Gali- 
leans? And  how  hear  we  every  man  in  our  own 
language  ?  *  *  *  we  do  hear  them  speaking  in 
our  tongues  the  mighty  works  of  God."  (Acts 
2  :  7,  ii.) 

Luke  introduces  the  Gospel  bearing  his  name  with 
this  statement :  "  Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken 
in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  those 
matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  (fully  established) 
among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us, 
which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  word,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also, 
having  traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately 
from  the  first,  to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most 
excellent  Theophilus  :  that  thou  mightest  know  the 
certainty  concerning  the  things  (Greek  words) 
wherein  thou  was  instructed  (or  literally,  which  thou 
wast  taught  by  word  of  mouth). 

The  opening  words  of  Revelation  are  these,  "  The 
Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  him  to 
show  unto  his  servants,  even  the  things  which  must 
shortly  come  to  pass ;  and  he  sent  and  signified  it  by 
his  angel  unto  his  servant  John  ;  who  bare  witness  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
Christ,  even  of  all  things  that  he  saw.  Blessed  is  he 
that  readeth,  and  they  that  hear  the  words  of  the 
prophecy,  and  keep  the  things  which  are  written 
therein ;  for  the  time  is  at  hand."  (Rev.  1 :  1-3.) 

When  we  examine  Paul's  writings  we  find  these 
most  explicit  statements :  "  Which  things  also  we 


32  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

speak,  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teach- 
eth,  but  which  the  Spirit  teacheth."  (i  Cor.  2:  13.) 
"  And  for  this  cause  we  also  thank  God  without 
ceasing,  that,  when  ye  received  from  us  the  word  of 
the  message,  even  the  word  of  God,  ye  accepted  it 
not  as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the 
word  of  God."  (i  Thess.  2:  13.)  "But  unto  the 
married  I  give  charge,  yea  not  I,  but  the  Lord."  (i 
Cor.  7 :  10.)  Peter  bears  this  testimony  to  the  in- 
spiration of  Paul's  writings  :  "  Even  as  our  beloved 
brother  Paul  also,  according  to  the  wisdom  given  to 
him,  wrote  unto  you ;  as  also  in  all  his  epistles, 
speaking  in  them  of  these  things  ;  wherein  are  some 
things  hard  to  be  understood,  which  the  ignorant 
and  unsteadfast  wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other 
scriptures."  (2  Peter  3:  15,  16.)  Two  things  are 
herein  affirmed,  viz. :  First,  Paul's  epistles  were 
known,  at  that  time,  in  all  the  churches  ;  and,  Sec- 
ond, they  are  equally  authoritative  with  all  the 
other  Scriptures. 

Peter  said,  "  This  is  now,  beloved,  the  second 
epistle  that  I  write  unto  you :  and  in  both  of  them 
I  stir  up  your  sincere  mind  by  putting  you  in  re- 
membrance ;  that  ye  should  remember  the  words 
which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets,  and 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Savior  through 
your  apostles/  (2  Peter  3:  i,  2.)  Peter  here  expli- 
citly declares  that  his  own  writings  are  of  equal 
authority  with  Paul's  and  the  other  apostles,  and 
the  prophets. 

And  so  the  Bible,  uniformly,  from  first  to   last, 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  33 

teaches  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration.  It  is  the 
Word  of  God.  This  is  the  invariable  testimony  of 
the  Highest  Critics.  They  never,  in  a  single  in- 
stance, say  that  the  thoughts  of  the  writers  of  the 
Bible  were  inspired ;  or,  that  these  writers  had  a 
"  Concept."  Only  the  "  Higher  Critics  "  talk  in  this 
way.  The  "  Highest  Critics  "  call  the  Scriptures — 
"The  Oracles  of  God  "  (Rom.  3:2.);  "The  Word 
of  God  "  (Luke  8  :  1 1) ;  "  The  Word  of  the  Lord  " 
(Acts  13  : 48) ;  "  The  Word  of  Life  "  (Phil.  2  : 16)  ; 
"  The  Word  of  Christ "  (Col.  3  :i6) ;  "  The  Word  of 
Truth  "  (Eph.  1:13);"  The  Word  of  Faith  "  (Rom. 
10 :  8) ;  and,  by  these  and  similar  statements  do  they 
declare,  more  than  two  thousand  times,  that  the 
Bible  is  the  Word  of  God, — that  the  words  are  God- 
breathed,  are  inspired.  (Theopneustia.) 

It  is  doubtless  true,  as  a  rule,  that  God  operated 
through  the  thoughts  and  wills  of  those  who  were 
inspired  to  speak  and  write.  I  think  this  is  appar- 
ent in  the  different  characteristics  of  those  who 
wrote  the  Bible,  as  seen  in  their  writings  ;  but,  it  was 
not  always  the  case,  indeed  in  some  cases,  the  in- 
spiration was  beyond  the  thought  and  independent 
of  it,  and,  in  immediate  conflict  with  the  will.  The 
dumb  ass  had  no  "  Concept,"  but "  The  Lord  opened 
the  mouth  of  the  ass,  and  she  said  unto  Balaam, 
What  have  I  done  unto  thee,  that  thou  hast  smitten 
me  these  three  times  ?  And  the  ass  said  unto  Ba- 
laam, Am  not  I  thine  ass,  upon  which  thou  hast 
ridden  all  thy  life  long  unto  this  day?  Was  I  ever 
wont  to  do  so  unto  thee?  "  (Numb.  22  : 28,  30.) 


34  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

"  But  a  certain  one  of  them,  Caiaphas,  being  high 
priest  that  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing 
at  all,  nor  do  ye  take  account  that  it  is  expedient  for 
you  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that 
the  whole  nation  perish  not.  Now  this  he  said  not 
of  himself ;  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he 
prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  the  nation  :  and 
not  for  the  nation  only,  but  that  he  might  also  gath- 
er together  into  one  the  children  of  God  that  are 
scattered  abroad  "(John  n  :49~5 2.).  This  is  a  case 
of  inspiration  independent  of  thought — "  Now  this 
he  said  not  of  himself." 

In  the  case  of  the  disciples  on  the  "Day  of  Pente- 
cost "  we  have  inspiration  above  human  thought. 
They  spake  "  With  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  utterance.  "  Speaking  languages  of  which 
they  had  no  knowledge,  so  that  the  multitude  "  Were 
confounded  because  that  every  man  heard  them 
speaking  in  his  own  language.  " 

Balaam  was  compelled  to  speak  against  his  will. 
He  said:  "Lo,  I  am  come  unto  thee;  have  I  now 
any  power  at  all  to  say  any  thing  ?  the  word  that 
God  putteth  in  my  mouth,  that  shall  I  speak." 
(Where  are  the  dynamics  in  this  case  ?)  He  did  his 
very  utmost  to  curse  the  Israelites,  but  as  often  as 
he  tried  it,  he  blessed  them.  Balak  at  last  said 
"  Neither  curse  them  at  all,  nor  bless  them  at  all.  " 
But  Balaam  answered,  "  Told  not  I  thee,  saying, 
All  the  Lord  speaketh,  that  I  must  do. "  (Numb.  22  : 
38  ;  23  :  26.  ) 

Even  independent  of  any  living  agency,  God  wrote 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  35 

the  words  of  the  law  upon  the  tables  of  stone,  in  the 
top  of  smoke-wreathed  and  fire-crowned  Sinai :  and 
caused  a  hand  to  stand  forth  and  write  upon  the 
wall  of  the  festal  hall,  the  words  "  Mene,  Mene,  Tek- 
el,  Upharsin;  (>  to  the  astonishment  and  consterna- 
tion of  Belshazzar  and  his  one  thousand  lords. 

At  the  baptism  of  Jesus  there  was  heard,  "  A  voice 
from  heaven,  saying,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased.  "  (Matt.  3  ;  17.) 

Amid  the  dazzling  splendors  of  the  Transfigura- 
tion scene,  there  came  "  A  voice  out  of  the  cloud, 
which  said,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  lam 
well  pleased  ;  hear  ye  him.  (Matt.  17  :  50 

When  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  smitten,  while  on  his 
way  to  Damascus,  "  The  Lord  said  (unto  him),  I 
am  Jesus,  whom  thou  persecutest :  Arise  and  go 
into  the  city,  and  it  shall  be  told  thee  what  thou 
must  do.  And  the  men  which  journeyed  with  him 
stood  speechless,  hearing  a  voice,  but  seeing  no 
man.  "  (Acts  9  :  5-7.) 

No  "  Inspiration  of  Superintendence ;  "  or  of 
"  Elevation ;"  or  of  "  Direction  ;  "  or  of "  Suggestion," 
can  by  any  possible  means  explain  these  last  cases. 

Dr.  Adam  Clark  once  said  :  "  A  good  man  could 
not  have  written  the  Bible,  and  a  bad  man  would 
not  have  written  it."  Another  has  said  :  "  Man 
couldn't  have  written  the  Bible  if  he  would,  and 
wouldn't  have  written  it  if  he  could." 

In  these  two  statements  are  three  self-evident 
truths.  First.  Over  and  over  again  the  Bible  tells 
us  that  God  the  Holy  Spirit  was  its  author.  Now, 


36  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

if  man  was  its  author,  he  was  a  liar,  and  consequent- 
ly not  a  good  man. 

Second.  A  bad  man  would  not  have  written  the 
Bible  if  he  could,  for  the  simple  reason  it  tells  him 
what  he  is.  It  speaks  of  unchristian  men  as  "  Abomi- 
nable Branches,"  "  Ashes  under  the  feet,"  "Bad 
Fishes,"  "  Beasts,"  "  The  Blind,"  «  Brass  and  Iron," 
"Briers  and  Thorns,"  "Bulls  of  Bashan,"  "Carcasses 
trodden  under  feet,"  "Chaff,"  "Clouds  without 
water,"  "Corn  Blasted,"  "Corrupt  Trees,"  "Deaf 
Adders,"  "Dogs,"  "Dross,"  "Early  dew  that 
passeth  away,"  "  Evil  Figs,"  "Fading  Oaks,"  "  Fiery 
Oven,"  "Fire  of  Thorns,"  "  Fools  Jpuilding  upon 
sand,"  "  Fuel  of  fire,"  "  Gardens  without  water," 
"  Goats,"  "  Grass  upon  the  Housetops,"  "  Green- 
bay  trees,"  "  Green  Herbs,"  "  Heath  in  the  Desert," 
"  Horses  rushing  into  battle,"  "  Idols,"  "  Lions 
greedy  of  prey,"  "  Melting  Wax,"  "  Morning  Clouds," 
"  Moth-eaten  garments,"  "  Passing  Whirlwinds," 
"  Potsherds,"  "  Raging  waves  of  the  sea,"  "  Repro- 
bate Silver,"  "Scorpions,"  "Serpents,"  "Smoke," 
"  Stony  Ground,"  "  Stubble,"  "  Swine,"  "  Tares," 
"Troubled  Sea,"  "Visions  of  the  Night,"  "Wan- 
dering Stars,"  "  Wayward  Children,"  "  Wells  with- 
out Water,"  "  Whited  Sepulchres,"  "  Wild  Asses' 
Colts."  In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  not  think- 
able that  any  man  would  write  such  things  against 
himself.  So  very  true  is  this  that  it  is  most  difficult 
to  get  unchristian  men,  as  a  rule,  to  even  read  the 
book  with  anything  like  carefulness,  or  to  go  to 
church  lest  they  hear  God's  estimate  of  them. 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  37 

Third.  Man  could  not  have  written  the  Bible  if 
he  would.  I  can  by  application  and  study  fathom 
the  depths  of  the  writings  of  the  wisest  and  most 
learned  of  men.  We  occupy,  in  some  respects,  the 
same  plane  of  possibilities.  We  are  men.  "  Canst 
thou  by  searching  find  out  God5"  "O  the  depth 
of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  the  knowledge 
of  God  !  how  unsearchable  are  His  judgments,  and 
His  ways  past  tracing  out ! "  Rom.  11:33. 

Prof.  Gaussen  says  :  "  The  theory  of  a  Divine 
revelation,  in  which  you  would  have  the  inspiration 
of  the  thoughts,  without  the  inspiration  of  the  lan- 
guage, is  so  .inevitably  irrational  that  it  cannot  be 
sincere,  and  proves  false  even  to  those  who  propose 
it." 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says,  "The  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  extends  to  the  words." 

Prof.  A.  A.  Hodge  says,  "  The  line  can  never  ra- 
tionally be  drawn  between  the  thoughts  and  words 
of  Scripture  *  *  *  That  we  have  an  inspired 
Bible,  and  a  verbally  inspired  one,  we  have  the  wit- 
ness of  God  Himself." 

Charles  Spurgeon  says  :  "We  cannot  refrain  from 
uttering  our  growing  conviction  that  the  Scrip- 
tures possess  a  verbal  as  well  as  plenary  inspi- 
ration." 

Dean  Burgon,  a  member  of  the  Revision  Commit- 
tee, and  a  man  of  vast  learning,  says,  You  cannot 
dissect  inspiration  into  substance  and  form.  As  for 
thoughts  being  inspired,  apart  from  the  words  which 
give  them  expression,  you  might  as  well  talk  of  a 


38  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

tune  without  notes,  or  a  sum  without  figures.  No 
such  theory  of  inspiration  is  even  intelligible.  It  is 
as  illogical  as  it  is  worthless,  and  cannot  be  too  stern- 
ly put  down.' 

Napoleon  the  Great  once  said, "  Book  unique, 
where  the  mind  finds  a  moral  beauty  before  un- 
known, and  an  idea  of  the  Supreme  superior 
even  to  that  which  creation  suggests  !  Who  but 
God  could  produce  that  type,  that  ideal  of  perfec- 
tion, equally  exclusive  and  original  ?  " 

With  the  learned  Bishop  Ryle  I  say :  Give  me  the 
plenary  verbal  theory  with  all  its  difficulties,  rather 
than  the  doubt.  I  accept  the  difficulties,  and  humbly 
wait  for  their  solution  ;  but  while  I  wait  I  am  stand- 
ing on  a  rock." 

Yonder,  upon  the  bosom  of  the  granite  hills,  is  a 
fountain.  By  some  unknown  and  untraceable  con- 
duit it  is  connected  with  some  greater  fountain 
amid  the  glaciers  and  eternal  snows  of  loftier  heights. 
From  its  subterranean  depths  and  inexhaustible 
source  it  pours  forth  its  floods  of  pure,  clear,  life- 
giving  water.  Stretching  away  from  the  base  of 
these  solemn  hills,  far  beyond  the  horizon,  is  an 
arid,  desert  waste.  Evidences  of  life  are  but  few  in 
all  its  vast  expanse,  and  it  lies  desolate  under  storm 
and  calm.  But  enterprising  men  gather  the 
floods  of  this  fountain  into  a  great  reservoir,  and 
thence  carry  it,  by  pipes  and  ditches,  abroad  over 
the  dusty  plain ;  and  soon  teeming  fields,  throbbing 
with  life,  everywhere  greet  the  eye ;  and  happy 
homes  and  sunny-faced  children  are  seen  ;  and  we 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  39 

hear  the  song  of  the  milk-maid  and  the  shout  of  the 
plow-boy,  and  all  is  beautiful,  peaceful  and  serene. 

But,  suppose  someone  shall,  in  the  midnight 
hour,  climb  to  that  fountain,  and  put  into  its  waters 
that  which  is  poisonous,  until  through  its  channels 
death  flows  out  to  those  fruitful  fields  and  happy 
homes  ;  and  men  and  women  die  ;  and  the  beasts  of 
the  field  perish  ;  and  the  harvests  are  unreaped  ;  and 
that  which  is  bright  and  beautiful  fades  ;  and  death 
dominates  all  the  scene.  Would  he  not  be  an  enemy 
of  his  kind  who  did  this  awful  thing?  indeed,  a 
fiend  incarnate? 

The  Word  of  God  is  a  fountain,  connected,  how, 
you  and  I  know  not,  with  the  fountain  of  perennial 
youth  in  the  heart  of  The  Eternal.  The  Church  of 
God  is  but  a  reservoir  for  receiving  these  life-giving 
floods  ;  and  forth  from  this  reservoir  these  waters 
are  to  constantly  flow,  to  make  glad  the  waste 
places. 

Some  go  through  the  conduit  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  others  through  the  Augsburg, 
Savoy,  and  Heidelberg  Confessions,  and  yet 
others  through  the  Thirty-Nine  and  the  Twenty- 
Five  Articles.  No  matter  how  these  floods  are 
conducted,  so  they  reach  the  desolate  places  of 
earth.  Our  business  is  to  keep  the  conduits  clean 
and  unobstructed,  and  let  the  waters  flow  on  forever. 

I  have  looked  into  these  waters  and  seen  myself 
reflected  to  the  very  innermost  and  uttermost,  saw 
myself  as  God  sees  me,  polluted  and  defiled  ;  needy, 
perishing  and  dying.  I  plunged  me  into  their  crystal 


40  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

depths,  and  was  washed  from  all  the  stain  and  defile- 
ment of  sin.  My  thirsty  soul  drank  long  and  deep 
of  the  life-giving  flood  ;  my  thirst  was  slaked  and  I 
was  satisfied,  and  ever  more  shall  be.  Millions,  be- 
side, have  had  similar  experiences. 

"  The  Waters  of  Life"  as  they  have  flowed  into 
the  dark,  desolate  and  waste  places  of  the  earth, 
where  grew  but  "  Fornication,  uncleanness,  lascivi- 
ousness,  idolatry,  sorcery,  enmities,  strife,  jealousies, 
wraths,  factions,  divisions,  heresies,  envyings,  revel- 
ings,  drunkenness,  and  such  like,"  the  fruits  of  the 
flesh,  have  caused  them  to  "  Rejoice  and  blossom  as 
the  rose,"  and  bring  forth  luxuriant  and  abundant 
harvests  of  "  Love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  kind- 
ness, goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness,  temperance, 
virtue,  patience  and  knowledge,"  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit. 

Surely  he  who  poisons  the  waters  of  this  life- 
giving  fountain,  by  casting  in  doubts ;  or,  pollutes 
them  with  his  mystifying  opinions  and  views,,  is  the 
enemy  of  his  kind. 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  41 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE  BIBLE  AS  A  LITERARY  WORK. 

I  desire  to  call  attention  to  certain  structural  evi- 
dences and  proofs,  by  comparisons,  of  the  Divine 
Authorship  of  the  Bible,  all  of  which  I  hold  prove, 
to  a  demonstration,  its  supernaturalness. 

I  occasionally  meet  a  young  man  who  says: 
"The  Bible  is  an  outworn  and  outlived  book,  pos- 
sessing little  or  no  literary  merit,  and  little  thought 
of  and  used  by  scholarly  men." 

Over  against  this  and  similar  remarks,  often  heard 
now-a-days,  I  wish  to  place  the  testimonies  of  a  few 
illustrious  men,  who  certainly  were  competent  to 
speak  upon  the  subject.  Sir  Walter  Scott  said  as 
he  neared  the  end  of  his  earthly  journey,  "  There  is 
but  one  Book."  Patrick  Henry  once  said,  "  There 
is  a  Book  worth  all  other  books."  John  Adams 
said,  "The  Bible  is  the  best  Book  in  the  world." 
Goethe  said,  "  It  is  a  belief  in  the  Bible  which  has 
served  me  as  the  guide  of  my  literary  life."  Daniel 
Webster  once  said,  "  If  there  is  anything  in  my 
style  or  thoughts  to  be  commended,  the  credit  is 
due  to  my  kind  parents  in  instilling  into  my  mind 
an  early  love  of  the  Scriptures." 


42  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Sir  W.  Jones,  the  jurist  and  Orientalist,  the  most 
accomplished  scholar  of  his  day  in  England,  said : 
"  The  Scriptures  contain,  independently  of  a  Divine 
origin,  more  true  sublimity,  more  exquisite  beauty, 
purer  morality,  more  important  history,  and  finer 
strains  both  of  poetry  and  eloquence,  than  could  be 
collected  within  the  same  compass  from  all  other 
books  that  were  ever  composed  in  any  age  or  in  any 
idiom." 

Sir  Matthew  Hale  once  said,  "  I  have  been 
acquainted  somewhat  with  men  and  books,  and  have 
had  long  experience  in  learning,  and  in  the  world  ; 
there  is  no  book  like  the  Bible  for  excellent  learning, 
wisdom,  and  use ',  and  it  is  want  of  understanding 
in  them  that  think  or  speak  otherwise." 

Boyle,  the  natural  philosopher,  said,  "  The  Bible 
is  indeed  among  books  what  the  diamond  is  among 
stones,  the  most  precious  and  sparkling ;  the  most 
apt  to  scatter  light,  and  yet  the  solidest  and  the 
most  proper  to  make  impressions." 

Baron  Humboldt  said:  "The  epic  or  historical 
parts  (of  the  Old  Testament)  are  marked  by  a  grace- 
ful simplicity,  almost  more  unadorned  than  those  of 
Herodotus,  and  most  true  to  nature." 

Coleridge  said  :  "  Intense  study  of  the  Bible  will 
keep  any  man  from  being  vulgar  in  point  of  style." 

Prof.  Huxley  says  of  the  Bible :  "It  is  written  in 
the  noblest  and  purest  English,  and  abounds  in 
exquisite  beauties  of  a  merely  literary  form." 

Examine  carefully  the  language  of  the  Book;  and, 
as  surely  as  you  are  competent  to  judge  correctly,  and 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  43 

are  honest,  you  will  conclude  that  it  is  incompar- 
able. Its  smoothness,  beauty  and  sententiousness 
of  expression  is  unique.  Someone  has  said,  "  It 
would  require  a  trip-hammer  to  knock  a  word  out  of 
any  sentence  John  Milton  ever  wrote."  Much  more 
is  such  a  statement  true  of  the  Bible.  Turn  to  the 
opening  chapter  and  read  :  "  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.  And  the  earth 
was  waste  and  void;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters.  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light : 
and  there  was  light.  And  God  saw  the  light,  that  it 
was  good  :  And  God  divided  the  light  from  the 
darkness.  And  God  called  the  light  Day  and  the 
darkness  he  called  Night.  And  there  was  evening 
and  there  was  morning,  one  day."  And  so  as  you 
read  you  will  agree  with  the  infidel  Rousseau,  "  I 
must  confess  the  majesty  of  the  Scriptures  strikes  me 
with  astonishment." 

Anyhow,  I  know  no  man  wrote  those  opening 
sentences.  It's  his  habit  to  amplify  and  write  ver- 
bosely. Hence,  writing  of  "  Beginning,"  he  would 
have  enlarged  and  given  us  an  octavo  volume  on 
Cosmos  ;  and  coming  to  speak  of  "  Light,"  he  cer- 
tainly would  have  given  us  an  extended  treatise  on 
the  subject.  Usually,  he  is  very  fond  of  writing 
on  subjects  of  which  he  has  little  or  no  knowledge. 


POETRY. 

It   is   often   said:      "There    are    no   poems   in 
4 


44  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

the  Bible."  It  is  true  that  the  Hebrews  were  not 
of  a  poetic  mind  or  disposition.  But  where  in  the 
libraries  of  the  wide  world  can  be  found  poetry  com- 
parable to  some  of  the  Psalms,  portions  of  Isaiah, 
Ezekiel  and  Daniel?  of  Job  and  the  Revelation? 
What  of  "  The  Songs  of  Moses,  of  Miriam,  of  Debora 
and  of  Mary  ?  Where  in  the  languages  of  earth  is 
there  anything  that  will  equal  the  following  for  real 
poetic  beauty  and  expression  ? 

"Thy  glory,  O  Israel,  is  slain  upon  thy  high  places! 
How  are  the  mighty  fallen! 
Tell  it  not  in  Gath, 

Publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon; 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  rejoice, 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  uncircumcised  triumph. 
Ye  mountains  of  Gilboa, 

Let  there  be  no  dew  nor  rain  upon  you,  neither  fields  of  offerings, 
For  there  the  shield  of  the  mighty  was  vainly  cast  away, 
The  shield  of  Saul,  not  anointed  with  oil, 
From  the  blood  of  the  slain,  from  the  fat  of  the  mighty, 
The  bow  of  Jonathan  turned  not  back, 
And  the  sword  of  Saul  returned  not  empty. 
Saul  and  Jonathan  were  lovely  and  pleasant  in  their  lives, 
And  in  their  death  they  were  not  divided; 
They  were  swifter  than  eagles, 
They  were  stronger  than  lions. 
Ye  daughters  of  Israel,  weep  over  Saul, 
Who  clothed  }-ou  in  scarlet  delicately, 
Who  put  ornaments  of  gold  upon  your  apparel. 
How  are  the  mighty  fallen  in  the  midst  of  the  battle! 
Jonathan  is  slain  upon  thy  high  places. 
I  am  distressed  for  thee,  my  brother  Jonathan: 
Very  pleasant  hast  thou  been  unto  me: 
Thy  love  to  me  was  wonderful, 
Passing  the  love  of  woman, 

How  are  the  mighty  fallen,  and  the  weapons  of  war  perished!" 

(2  Sam.  i  :  19-27.) 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  45 

John  Milton,  the  Prince  of  Poets,  once  said, 
"  There  are  no  songs  comparable  to  the  songs  of 
Zion."  Also,  he  said,  in  speaking  of  the  Psalms : 
"  Not  in  their  divine  argument  alone,  but  in  the 
very  critical  art  of  composition,  they  may  be  easily 
made  appear  over  all  the  kinds  of  lyric  poesy  to  be 
incomparable." 

Dr.  Johnson,  the  great  critic,  once  remarked  of 
Joseph  Addison  :  "  Whoever  wishes  to  attain  an 
English  style,  familiar  but  not  coarse,  and  elegant 
but  not  ostentatious,  must  give  his  days  and 
nights  to  the  volumes  of  Addison."  He  (Addison) 
says:  "Homer  has  innumerable  flights  that  Virgil 
was  not  able  to  reach,  and  in  the  Old  Testament  we 
find  several  passages  more  elevated  and  sublime  than 
any  in  Homer."  And,  also:  "After  perusing  the 
Book  of  Psalms,  let  a  judge  of  the  beauties  of 
poetry  read  a  literal  translation  of  Horace  or  Pindar, 
and  he  will  find  in  these  two  last  such  an  absurdity 
and  confusion  of  style,  with  such  a  comparative  pov- 
erty of  imagination,  as  will  make  him  sensible  of 
the  vast  superiority  of  the  Scripture  style." 

Baron  Humboldt  once  referring  to  the  iO4th 
Psalm,  said:  "We  are  astonished  to  find  in  a 
lyrical  poem  of  such  a  limited  compass  the  whole 
universe — the  heavens  and  the  earth — sketched  with 
a  few  bold  touches.  This  contrast  and  generaliza- 
tion in  the  conception  of  natural  phenomena,  and 
the  retrospection  of  an  omnipresent,  invisible  Power, 
which  can  renew  the  earth  or  crumble  it  to  dust,  consti- 
tutes a  solemn  and  exalted  form  of  poetic  creation." 


46  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

HISTORY. 

Sir  Isaac  Newton  once  said :  "I  find  more  sure 
marks  of  authenticity  in  the  Bible  than  in  any  pro- 
fane history  whatever." 

The  Bible  contains  the  most  ancient  history  of 
any  book  in  the  world.  It  reaches  centuries  beyond 
Josephus,  Xenophon,  and  Herodotus,  clear  back  to 
the  dawn  of  creation.  The  confirmations  that  are 
being  made  of  the  accuracy  of  its  statements,  by 
archaeological'discoveries  are  indeed  extraordinary. 
It  would  seem  that  almost  every  turn  of  the  spade 
is  bringing  to  light  some  corroboration  of  scriptural 
statement.  The  cuneiform  inscriptions  and  tablets 
of  Nineveh  and  Babylon  ;  the  hieroglyphics  of 
Luxor  and  Karnak  ;  the  "  Rosetta "  stone ;  the 
"  Moabite  "  stone  ;  the  "  Siloam  "  inscription  ;  the 
black  monolith  of  Shalmaneser ;  etc.,  etc. — these  all 
speak  from  out  the  dust  of  the  centuries  in  corrobo- 
ration of  the  Scriptural  record.  These  testi- 
monies are  playing  havoc  with  the  ancient  histories 
written  by  men.  Someone  has  said  :  "  Already 
over  two  thousand  mistakes  have  been  found  in  the 
best  ancient  history  man  ever  wrote."  Not  one 
mistake,  however,  has  been  proved  against  the  Bible. 

The  Babylonian  history  recorded  in  Genesis  ter- 
minates with  the  fourteenth  chapter.  The  remain- 
ing portion  has  a  Syrian  and  Egyptian  setting. 

The  explorations  made  at  Nineveh  by  Sir  A.  H. 
Layard  have  brought  to  light  the  ruined  library  of 
the  ancient  city  which  lay  buried  under  the  mound? 
of  Konyunjik.  The  three  expeditions  conducted  by 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  47 

Mr.  George  Smith,  and  the  later  ones  of  Mr.  Hor- 
muzd  Rassam  have  added  very  largely  to  the  stock 
of  tablets  from  Konyunjik. 

Prof.  Sayce  tells  us  "  Although  only  one  of  the 
many  libraries  which  now  lie  buried  beneath  the 
ground  in  Babylon  and  Assyria  has,  as  yet,  been  at 
all  adequately  explored,  the  amount  of  Assyrian  lit- 
erature at  the  disposal  of  the  student  is  already 
greater  than  that  contained  in  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament." 

Nearly  every  historical  statement  in  the  first  four- 
teen chapters  of  Genesis  has  been  verified  by  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions  already  exhumed.  The  story 
of  creation ;  the  fall  of  man  ;  the  deluge  ;  the  story 
of  Babel ;  the  dispersion  of  mankind  ;  Nimrod  ;  Abra- 
ham, Sarah  and  Lot ;  the  campaign  of  Chedor-Lao- 
mer ;  etc.,  etc. ;  are  told  and  described  on  the  tablets 
of  this  one  library. 

The  Egyptologist,  also,  is  having  the  same  kind 
of  experience.  He  has,  in  his  research,  fully  verified 
the  Scriptural  story  of  Joseph.  M.  Naville  has  cor- 
roborated the  Bible  date  of  the  Exodus,  and  proved 
the  personality  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression,  by 
his  excavations  at  Tel-el-Meokhuta.  Prof.  Sayce 
says  that  M.  Naville  has  not  only  discovered  the  ru- 
ins of  Pithon  or  Succoth,  one  of  the  Treasure  cities 
of  Joseph's  time,  but,  "  Has  even  discovered  the 
treasure-chambers  themselves.  They  are  very 
strongly  constructed,  and  divided  by  brick  partitions 
from  eight  to  ten  feet  thick,  the  bricks  being  sun- 
baked, and  made  some  with  and  some  without 


48  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

straw.  In  these  strawless  bricks  we  may  see  the  work 
of  the  oppressed  people  when  the  order  came  :  '  Thus 
saith  Pharaoh,  I  will  not  give  you  straw.'  " 

Nearly  three  hundred  historical  statements  of  the 
Bible  have  been  corroborated  by  the  labors  of 
Egyptologists  up  to  the  present  time. 

With  regard  to  Assyrian  history,  Prof.  Sayce  has 
made  a  list  of  seventy-seven  events,  running  from 
B.C.  1130  to  B.C.  513,  that  the  archaeologists  have 
deciphered  from  the  records  they  have  exhumed,  all 
of  which  agree  substantially  with  the  record  made 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  same  events. 

These  verifications  prove  to  a  demonstration  that 
the  historical  record  of  the  Bible  was  given  by  Al- 
mighty God. 

Dr.  W.  C.  Prime,  a  life-long  student  of  Egyptology 
has  expressed  himself  concerning  this  matter  in  the 
following  explicit  and  emphatic  manner,  in  the 
New  York  Observer: 

"  To  students  of  history  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  command- 
ing position  occupied  by  the  Hebrew  books,  among  the  literature 
of  the  past.  Their  truthfulness  compared  with  that  of  secular 
histories,  is  little  less  than  miraculous.  No  extant  history,  out- 
side of  the  collection  known  as  the  Bible,  ancient  or  modern, 
has  failed  to  show  the  tendency  of  the  human  historian  to  error 
if  not  to  wilful  falsification.  There  has  never  yet  been  published 
a  history  of  the  United  States  or  of  England  or  of  France,  a 
history  of  our  own  Civil  War,  or  of  any  war  in  Europe,  a  his- 
tory of  any  period  or  any  series  of  events,  which  has  not  been 
demonstrated  to  contain  mistakes,  and  misrepresentations.  The 
father  of  history,  Herodotus,  prepared  with  great  labor  a  history 
of  ancient  Egypt.  Modern  exploration,  bringing  to  light  the 
buried  art  and  the  buried  men  of  ancient  Egypt,  has  ascertained 
that  in  many  respects  he  was  misinformed.  It  became  necessary  to 


VS.  THE  HIGHEK  CfflTICS.  49 

have  an  annotated  Herodotus,  in  which  his  errors  are  corrected 
by  the  indisputable  evidence  of  the  monuments.  The  work  of 
tht  Hebrew  Moses  deals  extensively  with  Egyptian  history, 
politics,  manners  and  customs,  in  a  period  nearly  forty  cen- 
turies ago.  It  has  not  become  necessary  to  make  a  solitary  note 
on  the  margin  of  this  history  to  say  that  Moses  was  mistaken. 
Wherever  discovered  Egyptian  remains  have  given  us  informa- 
tion concerning  any  subject  touched  by  the  books  of  Moses, 
there  the  invariable  rule  has  been  the  confirmation,  in  the 
minutest  particulars,  of  the  accuracy  of  the  Hebrew  historian. 
We  have  no  need  of  any  annotation  to  correct  one  error  of 
Moses. 

Now  if  this  were  true  of  Herodotus,  or  of  Macaulay,  or  of  any 
historian  concerning  whose  work  no  one  had  ever  suggested 
supernatural  inspiration,  that  historian  would  rank  in  the  world 
of  literature  as  immeasurably  above  all  other  authors.  He  would 
unquestionably  stand  as  the  most  admired,  respected,  and  honored 
writer  known  to  the  human  race.  When  we  consider  the  prone- 
ness  of  men  to  err,  the  moral  impossibility  of  any  man's  avoiding 
mistake  even  in  the  common  concerns  of  life,  it  may  be  consid- 
ered very  certain  that  if,  in  ordinary  literature,  there  were  such 
a  historian,  of  whom  no  one  could  say  he  had  committed  an  error 
in  any  line  he  had  written,  the  critic,  the  intelligent  world,  every 
sensible  reader  of  his  work  would  unhesitatingly  say:  "This 
work  is  miraculous." 

I  am  not  dealing  with  the  question  of  Inspiration.  I  am  dis- 
cussing only  the  position  of  Moses  in  the  rank  of  historians.  It 
is  a  literary,  not  a  religious  question.  I  am  asking  you  to  divest 
yourself  of  any  conscious  or  unconscious  prejudice  against  claims 
of  supernaturalism,  and  to  consider  the  wonderful  supremacy  of 
this  author  over  all  other  authors  ;  a  supremacy  which  demon- 
strates that  in  his  intellectual  labors  Truth  occupied  a  control- 
ling power  over  mind  and  pen  which  it  has  never  occupied  in  the 
mind  of  any  one  in  the  long  catalogue  of  secular  historians,  an- 
cient or  modern. 

I  have  not  space  to  review  those  recent  discoveries  in  Egypt 
which,  to  the  critics  who  profess  to  have  no  faith  in  Moses  (or 


60  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

even  in  a  Moses),  have  again  so  startlingly  demonstrated  his  ac- 
curate knowledge  of  Asiatic  as  well  as  Egyptian  conditions,  in 
and  before  his  time,  and  the  folly  and  falsehood  of  their  intuitive 
conclusions.  No  point  has  been  more  clear  to  them  than  that 
Melchisedek,  King  of  Salem  and  Priest  of  the  Most  High  God, 
was  a  fancy  of  ages  long  after  the  supposed  date  of  Moses,  and 
not  a  historical  personage.  This  same  criticism,  based  wholly 
on  intuition  without  information,  has  also  taught  the  absolute 
impossibility  of  any  such  social,  political  and  literary  conditions, 
contemporary  with  Abraham,  as  are  assumed  and  mentioned  by 
Moses. 

The  Tel-el- Amarna  discoveries  include  a  large  amount  of 
diplomatic  and  personal  correspondence  between  the  Egyptian 
Pharaohs  and  Asiatic  Kings.  They  demonstrate  a  high 
civilization,  a  widespread  knowledge  of  Asiatic  languages  and 
literature,  close  relations  of  correspondence  in  Asiatic  letters, 
and  a  political  condition  identical  with  that  recognized  by  Moses 
and  discredited  by  modern  critical  imaginations.  Most  interest- 
ing among  these  are  letters  from  a  king  of  Jerusalem  somewhere 
near  B.C.  1400  or  1500,  a  successor  of  Melchisedek,  who,  in  the 
ancient  style  of  princes,  describes  himself  and  his  independent 
royalty,  as  derived  from  God  only,  in  the  terms  used  by  Moses, 
and  extended  by  later  sacred  writers.  He  says  that  no  father  or 
mother  placed  him  in  his  kingship,  no  king  of  Egypt  made  him 
king,  only  the  oracle  of  the  Mighty  King,  the  God  of  Jerusalem, 
Uru-salem,  City  of  Peace.  Moses  in  mentioning  Melchisedek, 
uses  an  accurate  description. 

The  Hebrew  historian  knew  perfectly  well  the  tenure  of  royal- 
ty in  the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem.  His  words  are  correct.  A 
voice  out  of  the  tomb  of  thirty  centuries  confirms  the  historical 
accuracy  of  Moses  and  demolishes  the  whole  system  of  Biblical 
criticisms,  which  has  taught  that  this  portion  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis  was  "  impossible  of  truth,"  a  pure  imagination. 

Will  it  stay  demolished  ?  Not  at  all.  It  will  stand  in  pulpits, 
sit  in  chairs  of  lecturing,  and  all  who  do  not  want  to  believe  in 
Moses  will  admire  the  self-sufficient  folly  of  teachers  who  say  : 
"  We  don't  believe  in  Moses  because  we  don't  believe  in  him." 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  51 

Trustworthy  literature  of  the  covenant  with 
Noah  and  with  Abraham  has  been  preserved  to  us  in 
inscriptions,  traditions  and  memoirs  which  no 
respectable  critic  dare  deny.  The  records  of  Abra- 
ham, the  rite  of  circumcision,  the  slaughter  of 
Hamor  and  of  the  men  of  Shechem,  the  escape  from 
Egypt  and  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  rite  at  Gil- 
gal,  stand  to-day  perfectly  intact,  despite  all  criti- 
cism. These  are  marvels  of  history.  Add  the 
sacramental  passover  and  the  daily  sacrifice  and  we 
have  the  essence  of  the  first  six  books  of  the  Old 
Covenant.  These  witnesses  are  contained  in  monu- 
ments and  certified  by  institutions  and  by  the 
Hebrew  history  for  more  than  two  thousand  years. 
Mr.  Pinches  tells  us  from  the  early  inscriptions  that 
the  Chinese,  who  migrated  from  Chaldea  in  the 
twenty-third  century  B.C.,  have  traditions  of 
Creation,  of  Paradise,  the  Tree  of  Knowledge,  the 
temptation  by  the  serpent,  the  fall  of  man,  the  curse 
upon  "him,  ideas  of  satan  and  angels,  traditions  of  the 
deluge,  and  the  dispersion  of  mankind. 

PHILOSOPHY. 

The  philosophy  of  the  Bible  is  not  equaled  by 
anything  written  by  Aristotle,  Plato,  Socrates,  New- 
ton, Locke,  Hegel  or  Bacon.  Sir  Isaac  Newton 
said :  "  I  account  the  Scriptures  of  God  to  be  the 
most  sublime  philosophy." 

Coleridge  said :  "  The  Bible  finds  me  at  greater 
depths  of  my  being  than  any  other  book." 

Rousseau,  infidel  though  he  was,  once  wrote — 


52  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

"  Peruse  the  works  of  our  philosophers,  with  all  their 
pomp  of  diction,  how  mean,  how  contemptible  are 
they  compared  with  the  Scriptures." 

Carlyle  was  very  fond  of  the  Bible.  Once,  after 
reading  it  at  length,  he  exclaimed,  "  A  noble  Book ! 
All  men's  Book!"  He  was  passionately  fond  of 
Job,  which  is,  without  doubt,  the  most  remarkable 
philosophical  treatise  in  the  world.  His  literary 
friends  knew  of  this  passion,  and  oftentimes,  at  the 
club,  they  would  ask  him  to  read  aloud  the  first 
chapter  of  the  book.  Directly  after  beginning  he 
would  invariably  become  so  lost  to  all  things  else, 
that  he  would  not  cease  to  read  until  the  last  word 
of  the  entire  book  was  pronounced,  the  while  those 
present  were  laughing  at  him,  or  talking  about  other 

matters. 

BIOGRAPHY. 

The  biographies  of  the  Bible  are  strikingly  unique. 
The  men  of  the  Scriptures  are  real,  natural,  true-to- 
life  men.  Not  so  other  biographical  characters. 
When  men  write  of  their  friends  they  say  all  the 
good  things  they  can  of  them,  and  usually  touch  up 
their  statements  with  glowing  colors,  and  always 
omit  mention  of  anything  disparagingly.  So  true  is 
this,  that  the  minister,  in  preaching  a  funeral  ser- 
mon, must  not  mention  any  bad  traits  or  weaknesses 
belonging  to  the  character  and  life  of  the  deceased. 

When  God  gave  the  record  of  the  lives  and  doings 
of  the  men  of  old — His  friends,  He  made  it  accord- 
ing to  the  facts  in  the  case.  He  tells  us  of  Noah's 
drunkenness ;  Abraham's  lying ;  the  rascalities  of 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  53 

Jacob  ;  the  dissembling  of  Moses ;  how  King  David 
committed  adultery  and  murder ;  and  all  about  the 
lying  and  profanity  of  Peter.  The  men  of  the  Bible 
are  neighbors  of  ours.  This  is  true  of  no  biog- 
raphy that  any  man  ever  wrote  of  his  friends,  and 
is  a  demonstration  of  the  Divine  authorship  of  the 
Book. 

What  drama  did  Shakespeare  write  that  will  at  all 
compare  with  Saul  and  the  witch  of  Endor?  or 
David  and  Absalom?  or,  Elijah,  Ahab  and  Jezebel? 
or  a  score  more,  contained  in  the  Bible,  that  might 
be  mentioned  ? 

The  imagery  of  the  Bible  is  far  more  skillfully 
drawn,  and  artistically  colored,  than  anything  that 
man  or  woman  ever  did. 

The  character  drawing  of  the  Bible  is  true  to  life, 
and  the  best  work  of  Dickens  and  Thackeray  is  not 
to  be  mentioned  by  comparison. 

Is  it  not  true  that  the  best  and  most  gifted 
authors  are  those  who  have  used  the  Bible  most  ? 
Hundreds  of  books  in  our  libraries  would  not  have 
outlived  those  who  wrote  them,  but  for  the  style, 
knowledge  and  enthusiasm  the  authors  borrowed 
from  the  Bible,  and  incorporated  into  their  pages. 
Indeed,  the  Bible  has  had  more  to  do  with  impart- 
ing life  and  longevity  to  other  books,  than  any  other 
reason  that  can  be  named.  What  would  the  world's 
literature  be  to-day,  if  there  had  been  no  Bible  ?  It 
has  lifted  literature  to  its  present  exalted  position, 
and  decorated  it  with  a  wealth  of  beauty  to  which  it 
otherwise  must  have  forevermore  remained  a  stran- 


54  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

ger.  We  know,  therefore,  from  these  and  other  rea- 
sons, that  the  Bible,  as  a  literary  work,  stands  at  the 
head  of  the  list,  and  is,  by  comparison,  without 
doubt,  the  Book  of  books. 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  55 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  BIBLE  AND  SCIENCE. 

Theology  is  man's  knowledge  of  God's  word 
systematized  and  classified.  Science  is  man's 
knowledge  of  God's  works,  systematized  and  classi- 
fied. Man's  knowledge  is  necessarily  limited  and 
imperfect.  Therefore,  theology  and  science  are 
oftentimes  in  conflict,  and  must  ever  be  ;  but,  between 
God's  word  and  works,  there  is  perfect  harmony. 

It  is  quite  natural  for  human  minds  to  discredit 
the  supernatural.  Most  of  the  "  Higher  Critics  " 
do  this  in  their  views  of  inspiration.  The  miraculous 
is  not  necessarily  unscientific,  it  is  not  the  setting 
aside  or  overriding  of  laws.  A  miracle  is  simply 
God  doing  something  according  to  certain  laws  of 
which  we  know  nothing.  To  illustrate :  If  I 
had  said,  twenty  years  ago,  I  talked  with  a  man  the 
other  day  one  hundred  miles  away,  just  as  though 
he  were  ten  feet  distant  from  me,  it  would  have 
been  called  a  miracle,  and  why?  Simply  because 
there  was  then  no  law  of  acoustics  known,  by  which 
the  human  voice  could  be  transmitted  one  hundred 
miles ;  but,  within  these  twenty  years,  such  a  law  has 
been  discovered,  and  our  voices  may  be  heard  by  our 
friends  one  hundred,  or  one  thousand  miles  away, 
and  it  is  not  called  a  miracle.  I  doubt  not  there 
are  ten  thousand  laws  operating  in  the  universe  of 
which  man  knows  nothing,  to  every  one  concerning 


66  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

which  he  may  truthfully  say  :  I  know  the  method 
by  which  it  operates. 

The  axioms  of  science  are  but  few.  It  not  infre- 
quently happens 'that  that  which  has  been  classified 
among  the  scientific  certainties,  has  been  displaced, 
as  a  result  of  subsequent  research  and  discovery. 
Man  is  predisposed  in  favor  of  his  own  conjectures. 
We  have  a  striking  illustration  of  this  in  the  "  Pro- 
gressive Evolution "  theory  of  Charles  Darwin, 
which  so  many  accepted  without  hesitation,  but 
which  he,  with  humiliation,  was  afterwards  obliged 
to  greatly  modify. 

When  one,  standing  amidst  scientific  discoveries 
and  deductions,  says,  "Here,  at  least,  we  have  an 
unmovable  footing:  we  stand  among  the  certainties; " 
the  sound  of  his  words  may  be  pleasant  to  his  ears, 
and  the  thought  may  minister  to  his  vanity  ;  but  to 
thoughtful  and  reverent  minds  there  is  very  much  of 
nonsense  in  his  utterances. 

A  skeptical  young  man  once  flippantly  inquired 
of  a  devout  old  farmer,  "Don't  you  know  that 
science  has  disproved  the  Bible?  "  "  What  science  ? 
I  haven't  read  the  morning  papers  today,"  was  the 
quick  reply. 

The  Bible  is  not  a  text-book  for  the  schools,  up- 
on the  physical  sciences ;  but,  it  has  not  a  little  to 
say  about  the  works  of  God,  and  what  it  does  say, 
is  said  accurately  and  well,  and  can  always  be  relied 
upon. 

Lieutenant  Maury,  than  whom  none  stood  higher 
in  his  department  of  science,  once  said :  "In  my  in- 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  57 

vestigation  of  natural  science,  I  have  always  found 
that  whenever  I  can  meet  with  anything  in  the  Bible 
on  any  subject,  it  always  affords  me  a  fine  platform 
on  which  to  stand,  and  a  round  in  the  ladder  by 
which  I  could  safely  ascend." 

Prof.  Dana  once  said  :  "The  grand  old  Book  of 
God  still  stands,  and  this  old  earth,  the  more  its 
leaves  are  turned  over  and  pondered,  the  more  it  will 
sustain  and  illustrate  the  Sacred  Word." 

Friedrich  H.  A.  Von  Humboldt  said  :  "As  descrip- 
tions of  nature,  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  a  faithful  reflection  of  the  character  of  the 
country  in  which  they  were  composed,  of  the  alterna- 
tions of  barrenness  and  fruitfulness,  and  of  the 
Alpine  forests  by  which  Palestine  was  characterized. 
They  describe,  in  their  regular  succession,  the  rela- 
tions of  the  climate,  the  manners  of  this  people  of 
herdsmen,  and  their  hereditary  aversion  to  agricult- 
ural pursuits." 

In  1831,  "The  British  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Science"  was  established  by  Sir  David 
Brewster  and  others,  and,  while  all  its  members  are 
not  necessarily  scientists,  yet  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  them  are  the  highest  scientists  in  the 
world.  This  association  in  1865,  drew  up  a  paper 
which  was  signed  by  six  hundred  and  seventeen 
members,  twenty  only  of  whom  were  not  recognized 
men  of  science,  setting  forth  their  views  on  the  rela- 
tions between  science  and  religion,  and  how  these 
relations  should  be  treated.  This  important  and  re- 
markable document  is  accessible  to  anyone  in  the 


58  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Bodleian  Library  in  Oxford,  England,  and  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

"We,  the  undersigned  students  of  the  natural 
sciences,  desire  to  express  our  sincere  regret  that 
researches  into  scientific  truth  are  perverted  by 
some,  in  our  times,  into  occasions  for  casting  doubt 
upon  the  truth  and  authenticity  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. 

"  We  conceive  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  Word 
of  God,  as  written  in  the  book  of  Nature,  and  God's 
Word  written  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  to  contradict 
one  another,  however  much  they  may  appear  to  dif- 
fer. 

"We  are  not  forgetful  that  physical  science  is  not 
complete,  but  is  only  in  a  condition  of  progress,  and 
that  at  present  our  finite  reason  enables  us  only  to 
see  as  through  a  glass  darkly ;  and  we  confidently 
believe  that  a  time  will  come  when  the  two  records 
will  be  seen  to  agree  in  every  particular. 

"We  cannot  but  deplore  that  natural  science 
should  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion  by  many  who 
do  not  make  a  study  of  it,  merely  on  account  of  the 
unadvised  manner  in  which  some  are  placing  it  in 
opposition  to  Holy  Writ. 

"  We  believe  it  is  the  duty  of  every  scientific  stu- 
dent to  investigate  Nature  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
elucidating  truth,  and  that,  if  he  finds  that  some  of 
his  results  appear  to  be  in  contradiction  to  the  writ- 
ten Word,  or  rather  to  his  own  interpretation  of  it, 
which  may  be  erroneous,  he  should  not  presumptu- 
ously affirm  that  his  own  conclusions  must  be  right, 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  59 

and  the  statements  of  Scripture  wrong.  Rather 
leave  the  two  side  by  side  till  it  shall  please  God  to 
allow  us  to  see  the  manner  in  which  they  may  be 
reconciled ;  and  instead  of  insisting  upon  the  seem- 
ing differences  between  Science  and  the  Scriptures, 
it  would  be  as  well  to  rest  in  faith  upon  the  points 
in  which  they  agree." 

Let  us  notice  a  few  cases,  by  way  of  illustrating 
the  truth  of  what  these  distinguished  scientists  have 
said. 

Once,  in  a  "  Drawing  Room,"  in  the  late  Earl  of 
Shaftesbury's  home,  the  subject  under  consideration 
was  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  A  distinguished 
Bible  scholar  was  conducting  the  study.  He  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  this  account  of  creation, 
the  order  of  genera  is  scientifically  correct.  Heaven, 
earth,  water,  light,  firmament,  grass,  herb,  tree,  heav- 
enly bodies,  fish,  moving  things  (amphibia),  fowls, 
creeping  things,  cattle  and  man.  The  possible  per- 
mutations of  fifteen  numerals  approximates  an  almost 
incomprehensible  number,  i.e.  1,307,674,368,000.  In 
order  to  show  how  impossible  it  would  be  for  the 
writer  of  this  chapter  to  get  these  events  correct 
in  their  order,  if  he  wrote  only  as  a  man,  he  took 
a  slip  of  paper,  and  on  it  he  wrote  fifteen  num- 
bers, from  one  to  fifteen  inclusive.  Under  each 
one  of  these  numbers  he  wrote  a  letter  of  the 
English  alphabet,  choosing  the  first  fifteen,  but 
not  writing  them  in  their  regular  order,  but  as 
confusedly  as  he  could.  Then  he  took  fifteen  slips 
of  paper,  and  on  each  one  wrote  a  number,  the 


60  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

fifteen  agreeing  with  the  fifteen  on  his  slip.  Then 
he  passed  these  slips  to  fifteen  different  persons, 
one  to  each,  and  then  asked  them  as  he  called  the 
numbers,  one  by  one,  for  the  persons  having  the 
slips  to  write  the  letters  he  had  written  on  the  slip  be- 
fore him.  One  can  see,  at  a  glance,  that  these  fifteen 
persons  could  get  the  fifteen  letters  in  the  same  or- 
der in  which  they  were  written  on  the  slip  held  by 
the  teacher,  by  the  merest  possible  chance,  if  they 
were  to  live  many  years  and  did  nothing  else  but 
try. 

In  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  Job  and  seventh 
verse  we  are  told  :  "  He  stretcheth  out  the  north  over 
empty  space."  Astronomers  who  were  skeptically 
inclined,  turned  their  telescopes  to  the  northward, 
and  ransacking  the  heavens  in  that  direction,  could 
find  no  "  empty  space  ;  "  and  then,  they  would  twit 
the  Theologues,  by  saying:  "Job  knew  nothing 
about  the  geography  of  the  heavens.  He  had  bet- 
ter left  astronomical  matters  alone,  and  attended  to 
the  things  nearer  home  with  which  he  was  better  ac- 
quainted, his  boils,  for  instance."  Then  the  Theo- 
logues, instead  of  insisting  that  Job  did  know  what 
he  was  talking  about,  undertook  to  parry  the  thrust 
by  saying :  "  Job  evidently  referred  to  the  north 
pole,"  feeling  quite  safe  in  making  such  a  suggestion 
with  seven  or  eight  hundred  miles  of  impenetrable 
ice-barrier  intervening.  Some  years  ago,  the  late 
Prof.  Loomis,  of  Yale  University,  in  speaking  about 
this  matter,  told  me  that,  "  Recently,  by  the  use  of 
the  largest  telescope  in  the  northern  hemisphere,  in 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  61 

the  Naval  Observatory,  at  Washington,  a  great 
vacuum,  corresponding  to  the  "  empty  space  "  of 
which  Job  wrote,  has  been  discovered  in  the  depths 
of  the  northern  heavens."  How  did  Job  know  of 
this? 

"Joshua's  Long  Day"  has  been  hooted  at  and  de- 
cried by  skeptics ;  and,  too  often  Christian  Ministers 
and  teachers  disbelieve  the  record  of  it,  pass  it  by, 
or  explain  it  away.  On  the  basis  of  the  publica- 
tions of  "The  British  Chronological  Society,"  Prof. 
Totten,  of  Yale  University,  has  "  Corroborated  by 
Eclipses,"  "  Verified  by  Equinoxes,"  and  "Proved  by 
the  Almanac"  that  the  Scriptural  account  of  the 
Long  Day  in  Joshua,  the  tenth  chapter,  and  the 
moving  backward  of  the  Shadow  ten  degrees  on  the 
"  Dial  of  Ahaz"  (Isa.  38  chap.)  are  scientifically  cor- 
rect, and  this  to  a  demonstration.  (See  "Joshua's 
Long  Day,"  by  C.  A.  L.  Totten,  M.A.) 

Herodotus  tells  us  of  certain  records,  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  the  Hebrew  account,  shown  him  by 
priests  while  in  Egypt,  containing  an  account  of  a 
"  Long  Day,"  which  agreed  with  the  Scriptural  nar- 
rative. 

The  Chinese,  also,  have  an  entirely  independent 
account  of  a  "  Long  Day  "  agreeing  with  the  record 
in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Joshua,  which  occurred  in 
the  reign  of  Yeo,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Joshua. 

Jonah  and  the  Whale  is  stock  in  trade  for 
the  skeptic.  He  proves  by  two  incontrovertible 
arguments  that  Jonah  could  not  have  been 


62  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

swallowed  by  a  whale.  First, there  were  no  whales  in 
the  Mediterranean  Sea ;  and  second,  a  whale's  gul- 
let is  not  large  enough  to  swallow  a  man  whole. 
Both  of  these  arguments  are  untrue.  Whales  of 
the  species  called  by  Cuvier  the  Rorqual  Mediterra- 
nensis,  have  been  found  in  this  sea,  and  even  as  dis- 
tinguished authority  as  Thomas  Beale  observes  in 
speaking  of  the  spermaceti  whale,  that  "the  throat 
is  capacious  enough  to  give  passage  to  the  body  of 
a  man."  We  mention  these  two  facts  simply  to 
show  how  reckless  and  unscientific  some  of  our  skep- 
tical friends  are  in  discussing  biblical  questions.  Let 
me  emphasize  the  fact,  for  we  are  all  apt  to  be  care- 
less readers  of  the  Bible,  that  the  word  whale  is  not 
once  used  in  the  Book  of  Jonah.  This  is  true,  as 
well  of  the  English  as  of  the  Hebrew.  The  latter 
uses  dag  gat  hoi,  and  the  former  great  fish.  Unfor- 
tunately our  translators  have  rendered  Ketos,  of  the 
New  Testament,  whale,  but  certainly  without  good 
reasons,  for  according  to  the  best  Greek  scholars, 
Ketos  means  any  sea  monster  or  huge  fish,  such  as  a 
seal,  shark,  tunny,  or  whale ;  thus  the  term  being 
indefinite,  sea  monster  would  be  more  correct  than 
whale.  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the  fish  in 
question  must  have  been  a  shark.  The  shark  is 
found  in  all  seas  ;  these  fish  often  swallow  very  large 
animals,  such  as  cattle  and  even  horses.  Not  only 
that,  but  they  often  throw  up  whole  and  alive  the 
prey  they  have  swallowed.  Any  reader  interested 
in  this  subject  will  find  numerous  and  interesting 
instances  of  sharks  swallowing  very  large  objects, 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  63 

such  as  men,  cattle,  horses,  etc.,  in  the  commentaries 
of  Pusey  and  Keil,  and  also  in  the  article  "  Whale," 
in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  or  M'Clintock  and 
Strong's  Cyclopedia. 

I  once  saw  a  marine  monster  off  the  Island  of 
Cyprus,  quite  large  enough  to  swallow  an  ordinary 
sized  man. 

I  also  once  saw  a  whale  eighty-four  feet  long  and 
twenty-six  feet  in  diameter  at  the  largest  part  of  his 
body.  Surely  the  God  who  made  such  a  monster, 
could  easily  enough  enlarge  his  throat,  if  necessary, 
sufficiently  to  make  it  easy  for  him  to  swallow  a  man. 

But  recently  the  remains  of  a  whale  were  dis- 
covered upon  the  coast  of  Norway,  with  a  throat  so 
large  that  he  could  have  swallowed  a  man  on  horse^ 
back,  horse  and  all. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  facts,  skeptics  will  still 
make  "Jonah  and  the  whale"  do  duty,  until  the 
end  of  time. 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  of  New  York, 
have  recently  published  a  deeply  interesting  volume. 
It  is  the  last  work  of  the  late  Rev.  Austin  Phelps, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  who  was  for  many  years  the  Presi- 
dent of  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  and  the 
author  of  many  learned  treatises.  This  work,  which 
is  entitled  My  Note  Book,  was  prepared  just  before 
the  great  scholar's  death.  "  If  I  can  only  live,"  he 
wrote  to  a  friend,  "  till  this  book  is  done,  I  shall  be 
content  to  go."  He  did  live  to  finish  it,  and  the 
last  letter  he  received  was  one  from  the  publishers 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  manuscript.  His 


64  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

famous  daughter,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Stuart  P.  Ward, 
has  read  the  proofs,  and  added  an  introduction  after 
his  death,  but  found  no  necessity  for  making  any 
changes  in  the  book.  As  its  name  implies,  the 
volume  is  fragmentary,  containing  the  jottings  and 
stray  thoughts  of  years,  but  the  fragments  are  gems 
of  rare  value,  all  the  more  precious  because  they  are 
the  last  we  shall  ever  have  from  the  pen  which  has 
written  so  much  and  so  well.  Among  "  the  frag- 
ments" are  the  following  observations,  which,  com- 
ing, as  they  do  from  so  learned  a  man,  are  entitled 
to  the  attention  of  students  of  prophecy. 

A  service  of  very  peculiar  nature  and  not  generally  known, 
connects  the  books  of  our  faith  with  the  researches  of  astronom- 
ical science.  It  is  well  understood  by  experts  in  astronomy 
that  a  certain  complicated  cycle  which  should  harmonize 
certain  intricate  revolutions  of  the  solar  system,  has  been 
sought  for,  for  centuries.  At  last,  it  was  until  recently, 
given  up  as  being  beyond  the  reach  of  human  discovery.  But 
within  a  few  years,  an  eminent  Swiss  astronomer  professes  to 
have  found  the  long-sought  marvel  of  astronomical  science. 
His  researches  have  been  submitted  to  three  distinguished 
astronomers  of  the  "Royal  Academy  of  Sciences"  in  Paris.  By 
them  it  has  been  pronounced  accurate  and  of  practical  value. 

The  interesting  fact  about  this  astronomical  discovery  is  that 
the  discoverer  was  first  led  to  suspect  the  existence  of  the  cycle, 
by  a  study  of  the  symbolical  prophecies  of  Daniel.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  majority  of  the  interpreters  have  found  in 
those  prophecies  a  period  of  2300  solar  years,  as  the  measure- 
ment in  the  prophetic  visions,  of  the  time  which  should  elapse 
between  the  age  of  Daniel  and  the  end  of  the  so-called  Times 
of  the  Gentiles.  The  Swiss  astronomer — M.  de  Cheseaux,  by 
name — is  a  devout  believer  in  the  Scriptures.  In  reading  the 
symbolical  predictions  of  Daniel,  it  occurred  to  him  as  a  hypoth- 
esis that  this  period  of  twenty -three  centuries  might  be  the 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  65 

cycle  so  long  despaired  of  by  experts  in  astronomical  science. 
On  further  investigation,  by  astronomical  methods,  he  found 
that  it  was  even  so.  The  discovery  led  to  that  of  other  cycles, 
all  involved  in  the  prophetic  computations,  and  by  means  of 
which  he  was  able  to  solve  between  thirty  and  forty  astronomi- 
cal and  geographical  problems. 

He  suggests,  plausibly,  to  say  the  least,  the  inquiry,  "  How 
happened  it  that  a  Hebrew  prophet,  twenty -three  centuries  in 
advance  of  scientific  discovery,  used  that  occ«lt  cycle  in  his 
timing  of  coming  events  in  the  far  distant  future  ? "  If  he  had 
conversed  with  the  most  eminent  astronomers  of  his  age,  he 
could  not  have  learned  it  from  them.  They  knew  nothing  of 
its  existence.  If  he  had  been,  himself,  the  most  accomplished 
scientist  of  the  century,  he  could  not  have  discovered  it.  There 
were  no  astronomical  instruments  in  existence  by  which  the 
requisite  observations  could  have  been  made.  The  famed 
astrology  of  Chaldaea  of  which  he  may  have  known  something, 
knew  nothing  of  it.  For  twenty -three  centuries  that  ignorance 
of  the  learned  world  has  continued,  notwithstanding .  the 
immense  advances  in  astronomical  knowledge,  and  in  the 
improvement  of  the  instruments  of  the  observatory.  Yet  all 
the  while  the  mysterious  and  unknown  cycle  lay  embedded  in 
the  symbolic  prophecies  of  the  Hebrew  seer.  How  happened 
that  ?  Not  one  only,  but  a  system  of  co-ordinate  cycles  was 
made  the  groundwork  of  prophetic  computations. 

How  came  that  about?  The  theory  of  the  discoverer  is,  that 
a  foreordained  synchronism  exists  between  the  movements  of 
the  solar  system  and  the  developments  of  human  history.  The 
chronologies  of  the  two  are  one.  The  mind  which  contrived 
the  one  foreordained  the  other.  The  clock -work  of  the  mate- 
rial heavens  and  the  clock-work  of  the  history  of  man  have 
been  created  and  wound  up  by  the  same  Being.  So  reasons 
the  devout  astronomer.  Of  course  none  but  proficients  in 
astronomical  researches  and  proficients  in  the  interpretation  of 
symbolic  prophecy  can  pronounce  independently  upon  the 
value  of  the  discoveries.  But  the  conditions  attending  their 
announcement  entitle  them  to  the  consideration  of  Biblical 


66  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

scholars.    They  place  the  hallowed  books  of  our  religion  in 

very  interesting    relation  to  human  science. —  The   Christian  x 

Herald. 


In  the  lists  of  animals  there  occur  nine   in    Deu- 

V 

teronomy  which  do  not    appear  in   Leviticus.     Of 
these,    five    or,  six    at    least,  probably   more,   are 
creatures  which  do  not,  and  never  could  have,  lived 
in   the    rich  valley  of  the  Nile,  or  in  wooded  and 
hilly    Palestine.     They    are  all  the   inhabitants   of 
desert  open  plains,  or  of  bare,  rocky  heights.     They 
are  not  named  in    Leviticus,   because   immediately    -^   .;•  o 
after  the  Exodus  these  antelopes  and  desert  deni- 
zens were  strange  to  the  Israelites.     But  after  thirty-    \    V  ^x 
nine  years  had  been  passed  in  their  haunts,  they  must 
have  been  familiar  with  them  all.     Is  it  conceivable 
that  any  writer  of  the  later  monarchy  should  have 
inserted    in    his  catalogue  animals  which  he  could    x. 
never  have  seen  or  known  but   by  report  ? 

Harvey  discovered  the  law  of  the  circulation  of^  +  ^ 
blood,  and,  although  he  demonstrated  it   by  uncov- v 
ering  the  heart  of  a  live  cat  so  that  its  action  could 
be  seen,  yet  not  one  scientific  man  in  one  hundred 
in  his  day  would   believe  it.     And  yet  this  law  is 
plainly  stated  in  Eccl.  12  :  6. 

Jesus  said,  that  when  He  would  return  a  second 
time  to  earth,  it  would  be  "  Even  "  at  one  point, 
"  Midnight "  at  another,  "  Cock-crowing  "  at  another, 
and  "Morning  "  at  another  (see  Mark  13  :  35).  In 
fact  He  said  the  world  was  round.  And  yet,  it  was 
thirteen  hundred  years  before  a  man  saw  it,  and 
when  he  did,  he  was  persecuted  most  unpityingly  by 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  67 

the  scientific  men  of  his  day  for  believing  what  he 
saw. 

In  these  and  other  cases  that  might  be  cited,  we 
see  the  truth  of  what  Sii  John  Herschel  once  said, 
viz.:  "  All  human  discoveries  seem  to  be  made  only 
for  the  purpose  of  confirming  more  and  more 
strongly,  the  truths  contained  in  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures." 


— 


' 


68  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   ETHICS   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

Our  objecting  friend  will  tell  us  that  the 
writings  of  Confucius,  Zoroaster  and  the  old  Pagan 
Philosophers  are,  ethically  considered,  as  good,  if  not 
better,  than  the  Bible.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that 
these  men  had  much  light ;  and  that  they  had  a 
pretty  correct  conception  of  a  very  great  deal  of  eth- 
ical truth.  From  whence  did  they  get  their  light 
and  knowledge?  I  reply,  From  the  Bible.  Our 
friend  don't  know  two  things,  viz.:  First,  that  every 
principle  of  ethical  truth  known  to  the  world  to-day 
may  be  found,  at  least  in  germ  form,  in  the  Penta- 
teuchal  books  and  the  book  of  Job ;  and,  Second, 
that  these  books  are  the  oldest  in  the  world,  and 
were  written  centuries  before  these  ancient  writers 
were  born.  We  know  that  they  were,  to  some 
extent,  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  Bible.  By  these 
and  other  facts  we  know  that  they  borrowed  much 
of  what  they  wrote  from  the  Bible. 

There  used  to  go  about  the  country  a  notorious 
and  blatant  infidel ;  and  enemies  of  righteousness 
gave  him  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  to  hear  him 
revile  the  Bible.  He  does  not  go  around  any  more. 
The  people  got  tired  of  paying  him  their  dollars, 
and  as  that  was  the  only  thing  he  was  after,  except 
notoriety,  he  remains  at  home  now  the  most  of  his 
time.  In  one  of  his  assaults  upon  the  Bible,  he 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  69 

would  pick  up  a  copy  of  the  volume,  and  after 
reading  a  few  verses  from  it,  stop  abruptly,  and,  clos- 
ing the  book,  throw  it  down  with  a  slam,  and  then 
say,  "  I  beg  the  pardon  of  this  audience ;  I  don't 
dare  to  insult  your  intelligence  and  decency  by  read- 
ing further."  And  then  every  man  present,  living  a 
licentious  life,  would  applaud  to  the  echo. 

It  is  true  there  are  things  in  the  Bible  I  would  not 
read  to  a  congregation  of  men  and  women.  But 
does  that  fact  prove  the  book  to  be  immoral  and 
untrue?  Ought  it  on  that  account  to  be  burned? 
Go  into  any  physician's  office  and  you  will  find 
books,  the  contents  of  which  no  one  would  think  of 
reading  to  an  audience  composed  of  both  sexes. 
And  why?  Because  they  treat  of  the  pathology 
and  therapeutics  of  human  diseases.  Are  these  books 
necessarily  immoral?  Ought  they  to  be  burned 
on  this  account?  The  Bible  treats  of  the  pathology 
and  therapeutics  of  moral  diseases  and  infirmities, 
that  are  immeasurably  more  dreadful  and  awful  than 
physical  and  mental  disorders.  What  wonder,  there- 
fore, that  it  contains  statements  that  it  would  be 
improper  to  read  to  a  mixed  congregation.  And  it 
was  never  intended  they  should  be. 

A  thoroughly  dishonest  trick  of  infidel  scoffers  is 
to  call  Germany,  England  and  the  United  States 
Christian  Nations ;  and  then  pointing  to  the  many 
diabolical  things  done  by  citizens  of  these  nations, 
who  hate  the  Bible,  hold  the  Bible  responsible  for 
them.  These  men  know  that  all  lovers  of  the  Bible 
are  opposed  to  the  slave  trade,  the  opium  and  liquor 


70  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

traffics,  polygamy  and  the  licensing  of  all  forms  of 
evil,  bitterly,  uncompromisingly  and  eternally  op- 
posed to  these  and  all  other  iniquitous  things ;  and 
are  always  to  be  found  in  the  fore-front  of  the  battle 
for  the  right  as  against  the  wrong.  The  trouble  in 
this  matter  lies  in  the  assumption  that  these  are 
Christian  Nations.  The  majority  rules,  and  as  the 
majority  do  not  love  the  Bible,  or  walk,  act  and  live 
according  to  its  precepts  and  commandments,  these 
immoralities  and  abominations  are  permitted  and 
legalized:  but  the  enemies,  and  not  the  friends,  of 
the  Bible,  are  responsible. 

In  what  land  under  the  sun  is  woman,  in  any 
sense,  the  companion  and  equal  of  man,  save  in 
those  where  the  Bible  is  an  open  Book?  In  what 
country  of  the  earth  are  eleemosynary  institutions 
to  be  found,  save  where  the  Bible  is  freely  read  and 
preached?  The  Bible  has  put  a  school-house  on 
every  hill-top,  and  built  a  university,  college,  semi- 
nary or  academy  in  almost  every  county  in  so-called 
Christian  lands.  Nine-tenths  of  educational  insti- 
tutions were  founded,  as  they  are  controlled,  by 
those  who  love  the  Bible.  These  institutions  are 
not  to  be  found  in  countries  where  the  Bible  is  not 
honored  and  exalted.  The  Bible  has  gone  before 
the  white  wings  of  commerce  upon  all  seas ;  and  has 
been  in  the  fore-front  of  exploration  and  discovery 
of  all  known  lands.  Its  principles  of  equity  and 
justice  are  fundamental,  in  the  common  law.  It  is 
the  bed-rock  foundation  of  the  highest  and  best 
forms  of  civilization,  and  is  the  World's  Magna 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  71 

Charta  of  civil  liberty.  It  has  broken  the  shackles 
of  the  slave.  It  has  comfort  for  the  sorrowing,  and 
hope  for  the  despairing.  It  has  put  vice  under 
bonds  to  keep  the  peace,  and  put  highest  premium 
upon  honesty,  virtue  and  holiness.  The  late  Earl 
of  Shaftesbury  once  said :  "  One  city  missionary  is 
as  effective  in  guarding  the  peace  of  a  community 
as  one  hundred  policemen."  It  is  the  best  and  most 
satisfactory  police  power  in  the  world. 

I  once  read  of  a  man  who  was  traveling  in  the 
wilds  of  Kentucky  many  years  ago.  He  had  con- 
siderable money  with  him.  He  also  was  well  armed. 
One  night  he  was  obliged  to  stop  at  a  double  log  cabin 
in  an  out-of-the-way  place.  There  were  a  number 
of  men  about,  backwoodsmen,  and,  to  the  eye  of 
this  man,  pretty  rough  looking.  The  traveler 
retired  early,  but  not  to  sleep.  He  put  his  money 
under  the  bed,  and  his  pistols  under  the  pillow.  In 
about  an  hour  after  retiring,  he  was  startled  by  the 
barking  of  dogs  and  the  noise  of  someone  enter- 
ing the  cabin.  He  got  his  pistols  and  sat  up  in  bed, 
and  looking  through  a  crack  into  the  other  room, 
saw  a  man  he  had  not  before  seen,  standing  a  gun  in 
a  corner  of  the  room.  The  other  men  sat  before 
the  fire.  The  new  arrival  joined  them.  They 
spent  some  time  in  earnest  conversation.  The 
traveler  could  not  hear  what  they  said,  but  felt  sure 
they  were  plotting  to  rob,  or  possibly  kill  him. 
Presently  the  late-comer,  who  seemed  to  be  the 
oldest,  arose  and  stepping  to  the  side  of  the  room, 
took  from  a  shelf  a  copy  of  the  Bible.  He  read  a 


72  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

chapter  aloud.  When  through,  they  all  knelt  while 
he  offered  prayer.  The  traveler  at  once  dismissed 
his  fears,  put  his  pistols  away,  and,  lying  down,  slept 
peacefully  until  the  morning,  and  all  because  there 
was  a  Bible  in  the  house,  and  the  rough  backwoods- 
men living  there  loved  it,  and  tried  to  be  guided 
and  governed  by  its  teachings. 

Where,  in  the  wide  world,  are  there  to  be  found 
maxims,  adages  and  rules  for  conduct,  at  all  com- 
parable to  those  in  the  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes, 
and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  Thirteenth 
Chapter  of  First  Corinthians  ?  We  have  books 
written  by  ALsop,  Macchiavelli,  Dr.  Franklin,  John 
Stuart  Mill,  Dr.  John  G.  Holland,  and  a  host  of 
other  gifted  writers,  on  the  laws  of  living  and  rules 
of  conduct,  books  that  contain  a  vast  amount  of 
wisdom,  often  beautifully  and  forcibly  stated.  But 
compare  them  with  the  maxims  of  Solomon,  and  it 
will  not  take  one,  competent  to  judge,  a  great  while  to 
see  that  they  are  of  a  very  inferior  order.  A  stu- 
dent came  into  the  study  of  Dr.  Wayland,  when  he 
was  President  of  Brown  University,  one  day,  and 
said  :  "  Dr.  Wayland,  I  have  been  reading  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon,  and  I  don't  think  they  amount  to 
much ;  I  believe  I  can  write  better  ones  myself." 
"  Well,"  said  the  doctor,  "  Suppose  you  take  two 
weeks  and  write  half  a  dozen,  and,  when  done,  bring 
them  to  me.  I  think  I  would  like  to  see  them." 
The  student  said  he  would,  and  withdrew.  The 
two  weeks  passed,  but  he  did  not  report.  The  wise 
old  Doctor  had  not  forgotten,  and  sent  for  him. 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  73 

When  he  entered  the  President's  office,  Dr.  Way- 
land  inquired  :  "  How  about  those  maxims  you 
were  going  to  write  for  me  ?  "  "  Well !  "  responded 
the  student,  "  I  haven't  succeeded.  I  thought  it 
would  be  an  easy  thing  to  do,  those  in  the  Bible 
seemed  so  simple  and  common-place ;  but  the 
more  I  tried,  the  more  I  found  that  I  couldn't  do  it, 
and,  after  boasting  as  I  did,  I  was  ashamed  to 
come  to  you  and  acknowledge  my  failure." 

Prof.  Huxley  is  about  the  last  man  one  would 
expect  to  say  anything  favorably  of  the  Bible  ;  yet 
in  an  article,  published  in  the  Contemporary  Review, 
Dec.  1870,  from  his  pen,  he  says  this:  "Take  the 
Bible  as  a  whole ;  make  the  severest  deductions 
which  fair  criticisms  can  dictate  for  shortcomings 
and  positive  errors ;  eliminate,  as  a  sensible  teacher 
would  do,  if  left  to  himself,  all  that  it  is  not  desira- 
ble for  a  child  to  occupy  himself  with ;  and  there 
still  remains  in  this  old  literature  a  vast  residuum  of 
moral  beauty  and  grandeur.  And  then  consider  the 
great  historical  fact  that,  for  three  centuries,  this 
book  has  been  woven  into  the  life  of  all  that  is  best 
and  noblest  in  English  history  ;  that  it  has  become 
the  national  epic  of  Britain,  and  is  familiar  to  noble 
and  simple,  from  John  o'  Groat's  house  to  Land's 
End,  as  Dante  and  Tasso  were  once  to  the  Italians." 
Rousseau,  infidel  though  he  was,  once  said  :  "  If 
all  men  were  perfect  Christians,  individuals  would  do 
their  duty ;  the  people  would  be  obedient  to  the 
laws,  governors  would  be  just,  and  magistrates  in- 
corrupt." 


74  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Edmund  Burke  once  said:  "  A  religious  education 
is  the  cheap  defense  of  nations."  And  for  himself 
he  said  :  "  I  have  read  the  Bible  morning,  noon  and 
night,  and  have  ever  since  been  the  happier  and  bet- 
ter man  for  such  reading." 

Lord  Bacon  said  :  "  There  never  was  found,  in  any 
age  of  the  world,  either  religion  or  law  that  did  so 
highly  exalt  the  public  good  as  the  Bible." 

John  Locke,  the  illustrious  metaphysician,  said  : 
"  In  morality  there  are  books  enough  written  both 
by  ancient  and  modern  philosophers,  but  the  moral- 
ity of  the  Gospel  doth  so  exceed  them  all,  that  to 
give  a  man  a  full  knowledge  of  true  morality,  I  shall 
send  him  to  no  other  book  than  the  New  Testament." 

Cowper  wrote : 

Now  tell  me,  dignified  and  sapient  sir, 

My  man  of  morals,  nurtured  in  the  shad 

Of  Academus,  is  this  false  or  true  ? 

Is  Christ  the  abler  teacher,  or  the  schools? 

If  Christ,  then  why  resort  at  every  turn 

To  Athens,  or  to  Rome,  for  wisdom  short 

Of  man's  occasions,  when  in  him  reside 

Grace,  knowledge,  comfort,  an  unfathomed  store? 

Benj.  Franklin,  on  one  occasion,  remarked:  "A 
Bible  and  a  newspaper  in  every  house,  a  good  school 
in  every  district,  all  studied  and  appreciated  as  they 
merit,  are  the  principal  support  of  virtue,  morality, 
and  civil  liberty." 

During  his  last  illness,  General  Andrew  Jackson 
pointed  to  the  family  Bible  and  said  to  a  friend: 
"That  Book,  sir,  is  the  rock  on  which  our  republic 
rests." 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  75 

Wm.  H.  Seward,  one  of  America's  most  able  and 
distinguished  statesmen,  said,  on  one  occasion  :  "The 
whole  hope  of  human  progress  is  suspended  on  the 
ever-growing  influence  of  the  Bible."  At  another 
time  he  remarked :  "  I  do  not  believe  human  society 
including  not  merely  a  few  persons  in  any  state,  but 
whole  masses  of  men,  ever  has  attained,  or  can  ever 
attain,  a  high  state  of  intelligence,  virtue,  security, 
liberty,  or  happiness,  without  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

The  distinguished  French  statesman  De  Tocque- 
ville  once  wrote :  "  Bible  Christianity  is  the  com- 
panion of  liberty  in  all  its  conflicts,  the  cradle  of  its 
infancy,  and  the  divine  source  of  its  claims." 

In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1891,  Hon.  W.  E. 
Gladstone  said  to  Dr.  T.  DeWitt  Talmage :  "  The 
older  I  grow,  the  more  confirmed  I  am  in  my  faith 
in  religion.  Sir,"  said  he,  with  flashing  eye  and  up- 
lifted hand,  "talk  about  the  questions  of  the  day, 
there  is  but  one  question,  and  that  is  the  Gospel.  That 
can  and  will  correct  everything.  I  am  glad  to  say  that 
about  all  the  men  at  the  top  in  Great  Britain  are 
Christians.  Why,  sir,"  he  said,  "  I  have  been  in  pub- 
lic position  fifty-eight  years,  and  forty-seven  years  in 
the  Cabinet  of  the  British  Government,  and  during 
those  forty-seven  years  I  have  been  associated  with 
sixty  of  the  master  minds  of  the  century,  and  all  but 
five  of  the  sixty  were  Christians." 

Abraham  Lincoln  said :  "  In  regard  to  the  Great 
Book,  I  have  only  to  say,  it  is  the  best  gift  which 
God  has  given  to  man.  All  the  good  from  the  Saviour 

of  the  world  is  communicated  through  this  Book. 
6 


76  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

But  for  this  Book,  we  could  not  know  right  from 
wrong.  All  those  things  desirable  to  man  are  con- 
tained in  it." 

General  Grant  said :  "  Hold  fast  to  the  Bible  as 
the  sheet-anchor  of  your  liberties,  write  its  precepts 
in  your  hearts,  and  practice  them  in  your  lives.  To 
the  influence  of  this  Book  are  we  indebted  for  all  the 
progress  made  in  true  civilization  ;  and  to  this  must 
we  look  as  our  guide  in  the  future." 

England's  noble  and  best  Queen,  Victoria,  was 
once  asked,  by  an  African  Prince,  who  visited  her 
court  on  an  embassy,  what  was  the  secret  of  Eng- 
land's greatness.  The  Queen  handed  him  a  beautifully 
bound  copy  of  the  Bible,  and  said :  "Tell  the  Prince 
that  this  is  the  secret  of  England's  greatness." 

The  following  beautiful  poem  was  written  by  the 
good  Quaker  John  G.  Whittier: 

0  lady  fair,  these  silks  of  mine 
Are  beautiful  and  rare, 

The  richest  web  of  the  India  loom, 
Which  beauty's  queen  might  wear ; 
And  my  pearls  are  pure  as  thy  own  fair  neck, 
With  whose  radiant  light  they  vie : 

1  have  brought  them  with  me  a  weary  way : 
Will  my  gentle  lady  buy? 

And  the  lady  smiled  on  the  worn  old  man, 

Through  the  dark  and  clustering  curls 

Which  veiled  her  brow  as  she  bent  to  view 

His  silks  and  glittering  pearls ; 

And  she  placed  the  price  in  the  old  man's  hand, 

And  lightly  turned  away ; 

But  she  paused  at  the  wanderer's  call, — 

My  gentle  lady,  stay ! 

f 


.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS. 


O  lady  fair,  I  have  yet  a  gem 

Which  a  purer  luster  flings 

Than  the  diamond  flash  of  the  jeweled  crown 

On  the  lofty  brow  of  Kings, — 

A  wonderful  pearl  of  exceeding  price, 

Whose  virtues  shall  not  decay, 

Whose  light  shall  be  as  a  spell  to  thee, 

And  a  blessing  on  thy  way. 

The  lady  glanced  at  the  mirroring  steel 

Where  her  form  of  grace  was  seen, 

Where  her  eyes  shone  clear  and  her  dark  locks  waved 

Their  clasping  pearls  between. 

"Bring  forth  thy  pearl  of  exceeding  worth, 

Thou  traveler  gray  and  old, 

And  name  the  price  of  thy  precious  gem 

And  my  page  shall  count  the  gold." 

The  cloud  went  off  from  the  pilgrim's  brow, 
As  a  small  and  meager  book, 
Uncased  with  gold  or  gem  of  cost 
From  his  folding  robe  he  took ! 
"Here,  lady  fair,  is  the  pearl  of  price, 
May  it  prove  as  such  to  thee ! 
Nay— keep  thy  gold— I  ask  it  not, 
For  the  Word  of  God  is  free!" 

The  hoary  traveler  went  his  way, 

But  the  gift  he  left  behind 

Hath  had  its  pure  and  perfect  work 

On  the  high  born  maiden's  mind. 

And  she  hath  turned  from  the  pride  of  sin 

To  the  lowliness  of  truth, 

And  given  her  human  heart  to  God 

In  its  beautiful  hour  of  youth. 


78  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

And  she  hath  left  the  gray  old  halls, 

Where  an  evil  faith  hath  power, 

The  courtly  knights  of  her  father's  train, 

And  the  maidens  of  her  bower; 

And  she  hath  gone  to  the  Vaudois  vales, 

By  lordly  feet  untrod, 

Where  the  poor  and  needy  of  earth  are  rich 

In  the  perfect  love  of  God, 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  79 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

PROPHECIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Men  have  in  all  ages,  and  by  all  possible  means, 
endeavored  in  vain  to  unlock  the  future.  God  only 
knows  its  mysteries.  If  there  were  no  other  reason 
for  believing  that  the  Bible  has  God  for  its  Author, 
its  prophetic  utterances,  that  we  know  have  been 
fulfilled,  should  dissipate  all  doubts. 

I  have  counted  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty 
distinct  prophecies  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  found 
in  nearly  every  Old  Testament  book,  written  from 
four  hundred  to  fifteen  hundred  years  before  He  was 
born,  all  of  which  were  fulfilled  in  the  most  minute 
particular  in  His  birth,  life,  passion,  death,  burial,  res- 
urrection and  ascension.  Glance  at  a  few  of  these 
prophecies,  and  then  consider  the  testimony  of  the 
Highest  Critics  as  to  their  fulfillment. 

BIRTH  OF  JESUS. 

We  are  told  in  Gen.  3:15,  that  Christ  shall  be  the 
seed  of  the  woman.  In  Gal.  4 :  4,  we  find  that  it 
was  even  so.  In  Isa.  7 :  14  it  is  declared  "A  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son  and  shall  call  His  name 
Immanuel."  Matt,  i :  18-23  declares  that  this 
prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  conception  and  birth 
of  Jesus.  So  also  does  Luke  i :  26-35.  It  was 
prophesied  by  Micah  that  He  would  be  born  in  Beth- 
lehem Ephrathah,  of  Judah  ;  and,  according  to  Matt. 


80  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

2:6;  Luke  2:4;  and  John  7 :  42,  it  was  even  so. 
Gen.  12:3;  18 :  18 ;  and  22 :  18  informs  us  that  He 
was  to  be  of  the  seed  of  Abraham.  This  is  confirm- 
ed by  the  testimony  of  Matt.  I :  i  ;  John  8  :  56  ;  and 
Acts  3  :  25.  It  was  prophesied  that  Jesus  would  be 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  And  it  came  to  pass.  See 
Matt.  2:  6;  Heb.  7:  14;  and  Rev.  5:5.  It  is 
declared  in  Isa.  n  :  I  ;  9:  6,  7 ;  Jer.  23 :  5,  6;  Amos 
9:11;  and  in  several  other  places,  that  Jesus  would 
be  "  Of  the  house  and  family  of  David."  And  so  He 
was.  See  Matt.  I :  I  ;  Luke  i  :  69 ;  2:4;  John  7 : 
42  ;  Acts  2 :  30 ;  13 :  22,  23  ;  Rom.  1 :  3  ;  2  Tim.  2 : 
8  ;  and  Rev.  22  :  16. 

LIFE  AND   MINISTRY  OF  JESUS. 

The  heralding  of  Jesus,  as  prophesied  in  Isa. 
40 :  3  ;  and  Mai.  3:1,  was  done  by  John  the  Baptist. 
See  Mark  1:2;  and  Luke  3:3,  4.  The  flight  of 
Joseph  and  Mary  with  the  Child  Jesus  into  Egypt 
was  necessary  that  Hosea  1 1  :  i  might  be  fulfilled. 
Herod's  slaughter  of  the  children  in  Bethlehem  was 
the  fulfillment  of  Jer.  31 :  15,  we  are  told,  in  Matt. 
2 : 16.  Jesus  taking  up  His  abode  in  Capernaum 
was  according  to  the  prophecy  in  Isa.  9:  i,  2,  so  we 
are  informed,  in  Matt.  8  :  16,  17.  Jesus  made  no 
great  ado  in  His  work,  but  tried  to  keep  His  doings 
hid  from  public  notice.  See  Matt.  12  : 15-17 ;  which 
was  according  to  Isa.  42  ;  1-3.  In  Psa.  78 : 2,  it  is 
prophesied  that  He  would  teach  in  Parables.  Matt. 
*3  :  34>  35  declares  that  this  prophecy  was  fulfilled 
in  His  teaching.  The  people  refused  to  receive  His 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  81 

teaching.  This  was  all  foretold  by  Isaiah  in  chapter 
6: 10 ;  and  53  :  i.  See  John  12:37-40.  His  riding 
into  Jerusalem,  as  recorded  in  Matt.  21 : 1-5,  was 
predicted  in  Zech.  9 : 9.  The  fleeing  of  the  Disci- 
ples and  leaving  Him  alone  (Matt.  26 :  56)  is  just  what 
Zechariah  said  would  be  done.  See  Zech.  13:7. 

PASSION  AND  DEATH  OF  JESUS. 

The  passion  of  Jesus  is  foretold  in  Psa.  22  : 1-18  ; 
31:13;  89:38-45;  and  particularly  in  the  53d 
chapter  of  Isaiah.  Matt.  26  :  31  ;  Luke  24 : 26  ;  and 
Acts  8  :  32-35  inform  us  that  in  His  sufferings  these 
prophesies  were  fulfilled.  We  are  told  in  John 
3  :  14  that  Jesus  must  be  "  Lifted  up  "  even  as  typi- 
fied in  Numb.  21  :9;  and  we  know  He  was.  The 
manner  of  His  death  is  prophetically  described  in 
Psa.  22 :  16 ;  and  confirmed  by  John  20 :  25,  27. 
We  are  told  that  they  who  crucified  Him  cast  lots 
for  His  vesture  (See  John  19 : 23,  24).  This  was 
foretold  in  Psa.  22:18.  In  John  19:33,  we  are 
told  :  "  But  when  they  came  to  Jesus  and  saw  that 
He  was  dead  already,  they  break  not  His  legs." 
Psa.  34:20  says,  "  He  keepeth  all  His  bones,  not 
one  of  them  is  broken." 

BURIAL,  RESURRECTION  AND  ASCENSION  OF  JESUS. 

In  Isaiah  53  :  9,  we  are  told  that  "  They  made  His 
grave  with  the  wicked  and  rich  in  His  death."  And 
this  is  just  what  was  done.  See  Matt.  27  :  57-60  ; 
Mark  15:  43-46;  Luke  23:  50-53:  John  19: 
38-42.  In  Acts  2 :  29-32  we  are  told  explicitly 


82  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  had  taken  place  ac- 
cording to  the  prophecy  of  David,  as  recorded  in 
Psalm  16  :  10.  Jesus  himself  said  :  "  Destroy  this 
temple  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.  *  *  * 
But  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body."  (John 
2  :  19,  21).  He  here  foretells  the  time  He  was  to  be 
in  the  grave,  as  well  as  the  fact  of  His  resurrection  ; 
which  facts  were  typified  by  the  swallowing  of 
Jonah  by  the  sea-monster,  and  his  subsequent  deliv- 
erance. See  Matt.  12:40.  After  the  death  of 
Jesus  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  remembering  what 
He  had  said — though  the  disciples  seem  to  have 
forgotten  it — about  His  resurrection,  came  to  Pilate 
and  besought  him  to  take  extra  precautions  against 
the  thing  foretold.  See  Matt.  27  :  62-66.  But 
their  vigilance  and  efforts  to  make  void  the  prophe- 
cies and  His  own  predictions,  were  futile. 

In  Psalm  110:1,  it  is  said:  "The  Lord  saith 
unto  my  Lord,  sit  thou  at  my  right  hand,  until  I 
make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool."  Jesus  Christ, 
in  quoting  this  prophecy  to  the  Pharisees,  who 
sought  to  entangle  Him  in  His  words,  left  no  doubt 
as  to  the  particular  person  who  was  to  be  exalted. 
See  Matt.  22  :  42-46.  That  He  was  so  exalted, 
see  Acts  I  :  9-1 1  ;  2  :  33  ;  Rom.  8:33;  Heb.  1:3; 
2:9;  9  :  24 ;  and  Rev.  12:5.  In  Eph.  4  :  8-10,  it 
is  explicitly  stated  that  the  ascension  of  Jesus  was 
in  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  in  Psa.  68:  18.  Seven 
years  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  Stephen, 
"  Being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  looked  up  stead- 
fastly into  heaven,  and  saw  the  glory  of  God,  and 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  83 

Jesus,  standing  cr§f  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  said, 
Behold,  I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of 
man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God."  Acts  7  : 
55-56.  It  is  the  unfailing  comfort  of  the  Lord's 
people  to  know  that,  "  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an 
Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the 
righteous."  I  John  2  :  I. 

Among  the  last  words  spoken  by  Jesus  to  His 
Disciples  were  these :  "  And  He  said  unto  them, 
These  are  my  words  which  I  spake  unto  you  while 
I  was  yet  with  you,  how  that  all  things  must  needs 
be  fulfilled,  which  are  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  concerning  me. 
Then  opened  He  their  mind,  that  they  might  under- 
stand the  Scriptures ;  and  He  said  unto  them,  Thus 
it  is  written  that  the  Christ  should  suffer,  and  rise 
again  from  the  dead  the  third  day ;  and  that  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
his  name  unto  all  nations,  beginning  from  Jerusalem. 
Ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things."  Luke  24 :  44-48. 

The  prophecies  relating  to  the  Christ  are  not  the 
only  ones  which  have  been  fulfilled.  Consider  those 
relating  to  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  and  the  wasting  and  desolation  of 
Palestine,  and  you  cannot  help  concluding  that  they 
are  quite  as  extraordinary. 

Take  the  prophecies  of  the  building  of  Babylon, 
and  the  kingdom  of  Cyrus,  uttered  nearly  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  before  anything  was  otherwise 
known  of  them.  All  fulfilled  in  exact  detail.  Dr. 
Newman,  in  his  archaeological  researches  among  the 


84  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

ruins  of  Babylon,  has  declared,  "  I  could  take  a 
competent  engineer,  if  I  had  sufficient  resources,  and 
reconstruct  Babylon,  guided  only  by  the  prophecies 
uttered  concerning  it,  long  years  before  the  first 
foundation  stone  was  laid."  We  all  know  how  fully  the 
prophecies  of  the  overthrow  and  destruction  of 
Babylon  were  fulfilled.  We  know  how  all  that  was 
said  prophetically  of  King  Cyrus,  one  hundred  and 
forty  years  before  he  was  born,  came  to  pass.  Who 
among  the  wise  men  of  earth  can  tell  us  who  is  to' 
be  born  one  hundred  and  forty  years  hence?  or, 
inform  us,  infallibly,  what  will  happen  so  distant  in 
the  future?  No,  the  future  is  impenetrable  to 
human  ken.  Only  He  who  "  inhabiteth  eternity  " 
knows  what  will  surely  come  to  pass.  Therefore, 
we  know  He  is  the  author  of  the  Bible,  for  the 
prophecies  in  its  pages  that  we  know  have  come  to 
pass,  demonstrate  the  fact  to  us. 

Let  it  also  be  noted,  in  this  connection,  how  the 
very  best  formularies  of  so-called  "Advance  knowl- 
edge "  relating  to  governmental  affairs,  seem  to  have 
been  anticipated,  prophetically,  in  this  oldest  and 
best  of  Books. 

Is  it  not  true  that  all  the  fundamental  elements  of 
constitutional  law,  of  this  and  all  other  civilized 
countries,  are  taken  from  the  "Mosaic  Code?"  Is 
it  not  true  that  every  beneficent  principle  of  our 
common  law  is  suggested  in  the  Decalogue?" 

What  approved  methods  of  military  science  are 
taught  in  the  schools  of  the  foremost  nations  to-day, 
that  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  85 

Study  the  campaigns  and  extensive  military  opera- 
tions of  Moses,  Joshua,  and  that  greatest  military 
leader  the  world  ever  saw,  King  David,  and  know 
that  Napoleon  and  Wellington,  and  Grant  and  Lee, 
and  Von  Moltke,  knew  nothing  of  the  science  of 
warfare  strategically  that  they  did  not  know  and 
practice. 

What  about  the  family,  and  civilized  society  ?  Is 
it  not  forevermore  true  that  the  best,  highest  and 
happiest  state  is  reached  when  the  Bible  model  is 
copied  ?  and  the  Bible  standard  is  approximated  ? 


88  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  MIRACLE  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Whence  but  from  Heaven,  could  men  unskilled  in  arts, 
In  several  ages  born,  in  several  parts, 
Weave  such  agreeing  truths,  or  how,  or  why, 
Should  all  conspire  to  cheat  us  with  a  lie? 
Unasked  their  pains,  ungrateful  their  advice, 
Starving  their  gain,  and  martyrdom  their  price. 

DRYDEN. 

The  Bible  is  composed  of  sixty-six  separate  books ; 
written,  humanly  speaking,  by  about  thirty-eight 
different  persons,  the  first  and  the  last  living  quite  fif- 
teen hundred  years  apart.  The  characters  of  the 
writers,  the  manner  and  surroundings  of  their  lives, 
and  the  situations,  in  every  aspect  of  the  cast  of  the 
case,  make  it  absolutely  impossible  that  there  could 
have  been  a  preconcerted  plan  and  collusion  among 
the  agents  in  its  construction.  Yet,  when  the  Book, 
as  such,  is  examined,  we  find  it  harmonious 
as  a  whole,  symmetrical  in  all  its  proportions 
and  logically  perfect.  We  find  the  same  things  in 
Revelation  that  we  find  in  Genesis :  The  garden  of 
God ;  the  river  of  life  ;  the  tree  of  life ;  and  all  liv- 
ing creatures  acting  in  harmony  with  the  laws  of 
God  and  at  peace  one  with  another.  All  in  the 
Book  that  lies  between,  has  but  one  bent  and  pur- 
pose, and  that  is,  to  bring  sinful,  wandering,  lost 
man  back  to  God  and  Paradise.  Such  a  thing  could 
not  happen  so,  positively  it  could  not ! 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  87 

Suppose  that  fifteen  hundred  years  ago  a  man 
went  to  a  marble  quarry  and  took  five  blocks  of 
marble  and  placed  them  in  an  open  field.  After  he 
is  dead  many  years,  another  man  comes  along  and 
places  three  stones  upon  the  five.  Then  two  hun- 
hundred  years  later  another  man  places  seven  stones 
upon  the  eight ;  and  so,  through  the  passing  years, 
men  who  never  saw  those  who  went  before  them  in 
this  work,  bring  blocks  of  marble  from  the  same  quar- 
ry, and  place  them  upon  the  same  pile,  until  to-day, 
the  thirty-eighth  man  brings  the  last  of  sixty-six  stones 
and  places  it  in  position  on  top  of  the  other  sixty- 
five.  What  would  any  one  expect  to  see  ?  Simply, 
and  only,  a  pile  of  stones.  But,  suppose,  instead,  a 
statue,  as  perfect  and  artistic  as  ever  came  from  the 
chisel  of  Phideas  or  Michael  Angelo,  stood  before 
you.  How  could  it  be  explained  ?  Only  in  one 
way,  viz.:  That  some  great  master  artist  mind 
planned  the  work,  and  the  thirty-eight  workmen 
simply  wrought  according  to  the  known  design.  In 
just  such  a  way  was  the  Bible  constructed.  The 
infinitely  wise  God  designed  it,  and  the  thirty-eight 
men  who  constructed  it,  were  chosen  by  Him  to 
execute  His  plans,  and  spake  or  wrote  as  He  gave 
them  utterance.  Its  construction  can  be  explained 
upon  no  other  grounds. 

Again.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Bible  is 
the  oldest  book  in  the  world ;  portions  of  it  ante-dat- 
ing, by  many  centuries,  any  other  book.  Also,  that 
portions  of  this  Book  were  written,  humanly  speak- 
ing, by  ignorant  and  unlearned  men.  And  yet,  with 


88  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

all  our  boasted  learning  and  progress,  and  the  accum- 
ulated wisdom  of  the  centuries,  it  stands  to-day,  in 
the  estimation  of  the  foremost  Philosophers  and 
Statesmen;  Scientists  and  Poets;  Metaphysicians  and 
Historians ;  Warriors  and  Wise  men,  pre-eminently, 
the  Book  of  books !  The  only  possible  reason  that 
can  be  given  for  this  very  astonishing  fact  is  that 
God  is  its  Author.  And  yet  there  are  those  who 
ridicule  the  Book,  and  make  light  of  this  fact.  But, 
is  it  not  remarkable  that  among  the  many  brilliant 
men  who  have  denied  the  supernatural  origin  of  the 
Book,  not  one  of  them  has  written  a  better  one?  If 
some  one  will  write  a  better  book,  it  will  be  a  dem- 
onstration to  the  world  that  the  Bible  is,  as  they 
claim,  who  hate  it,  of  human  origin ;  and  he  will 
secure  for  himself  such  literary  fame  as  no  author  ever 
enjoyed  ;  and  wealth  by  the  millions.  Why  did  not 
Celsus,  Voltaire,  Hume,  or  Paine  write  such  a 
book?  They  were  scholarly  men,  brilliant  and  accom- 
plished, and  industrious  and  prolific  writers.  They 
hated  the  Book  with  implacable  hatred.  They 
labored  hard  to  destroy  it,  they  had  almost  every 
possible  incentive  to  do  this.  Writing  a  better  book 
would  have  done  it.  Literary  fame  and  wealth 
would  have  been  theirs,  had  they  succeeded.  Why 
did  they  not  do  this  thing  ?  Why  do  not  some  of 
the  bright,  scholarly  and  gifted  skeptics  and  haters 
of  the  Book  of  our  day,  do  this  thing?  There  is  much 
boasting  of  scholarship  and  advanced  learning  by 
such.  They  tell  us  that  this  is  a  progressive  age  ; 
that  mediaeval  and  ancient  learning  is  as  nothing 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  89 

compared  to  the  learning  of  these  days.  And  they 
are  in  a  degree  correct.  Surely,  then,  they  ought  to 
write  a  better  book  than  those  nomadic  men  who, 
without  libraries  or  universities,  wrote  in  the  very 
dawn  of  history ;  or,  those  unlettered  fishermen  of 
Galilee.  And  they  could,  and  would  do  this  very 
thing,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  God  is  the  Author 
of  the  Bible,  and  it  contains,  therefore,  infinite 
knowledge  and  wisdom. 

"  Where  is  the  wise  ?  where  is  the  scribe  ?  where 
is  the  disputer  of  this  world  ?  hath  not  God  made 
foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world  ?  "  I  Cor.  i  :  20. 

Is  it  not  true  that  man  has  improved  upon  every, 
thing  that  man  ever  invented  or  did  ?  Place  a  mod- 
ern "  Consul  "  or  "  Mogul"  locomotive  engine  along- 
side of  "  The  Rocket,"  the  first  locomotive  engine 
ever  built,  and  it  will  be  seen,  at  once,  that  great 
improvements  have  been  made  upon  Stephenson's 
invention  and  labor. 

The  first  sewing  machine  was  but  a  crude  affair. 
The  modern  sewing  machine  is  run  by  electricity, 
and  can  make  any  article  of  wearing  apparel  worn 
by  human  beings,  with  almost  lightning  rapidity. 
Almost  unnumbered  improvements  have  been  made 
upon  Howe's  invention. 

Morse  captured  the  idea  of  telegraphy,  and  was 
the  first  to  apply  it  practically.  But,  if  he  were 
alive  to-day,  he  would  hardly  know  the  science,  it 
has  made  such  rapid  and  great  progress.  The  in- 
struments now  in  use,  in  all  the  principal  offices, 
would  be  more  a  cause  of  wonderment  to  him,  than 


90  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

the  first  instrument  he  constructed  was  to  the 
American  people. 

McCormick's  invention  of  the  reaping  machine 
was  among  the  greatest  of  modern  times.  But  the 
improvements  made  upon  it,  are  one  hundred  times 
more  complex  and  remarkable  than  the  original 
machine. 

And  it  is  just  so  with  everything  that  man  ever 
invented  or  discovered.  But,  the  first  Book  still 
stands  at  the  head,  unimproved  upon  ;  because  like 
all  the  works  of  God,  it  is  not  possible  for  man  to 
improve  upon  it.  Nor,  can  it  ever  be  done ;  be- 
cause like  Him  of  Whom  it  treats,  it  is  "  The  same 
yesterday,  to-day  and  forever." 

Its  indestructibleness  attests  its  supernaturalness. 
Men  have  tried  in  every  imaginable  way  to  destroy 
it.  All  that  learning  could  suggest,  malevolence 
contrive  and  unwearied  energy  accomplish,  has  been 
done  to  annihilate  it.  It  looked,  at  one  time,  to 
those  who  hated  the  book  and  sought  its  destruc- 
tion, as  though  their  efforts  would  surely  be 
rewarded  with  success.  Voltaire  said :  "  In  one 
hundred  years  there  will  not  be  a  copy  of  the  Bible 
on  earth."  The  one  hundred  years  have  passed  and 
there  are  quite  four  hundred  millions  of  copies  of 
the  Book,  printed  in  more  than  three  hundred  lan- 
guages and  dialects,  in  the  world  to-day.  There  is 
one  printed  copy  of  the  entire  Book,  or  some  portion 
of  it,  for  every  man,  woman  and  child  of  the  nearly 
fifteen  hundred  millions  of  the  earth's  population. 
And  the  very  printing  press  on  which  Voltaire 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  91 

printed  this  prophecy,  is  owned  by  the  Geneva  Bible 
Society,  and  is  used  by  them  in  printing  God's  Holy 
Word. 

It  seems  to  have  thrived  upon  the  hard  treat- 
ment to  which  it  has  been  subjected.  I  once  read 
of  an  Irishman  who  built  a  stone  fence  for  a  man. 
When  they  came  to  a  settlement  for  the  work  done, 
the  land  owner  inquired  :  "  How  high  did  you 
build  the  fence  ?  "  "  Four  feet  high,  sir,"  was  the 
response.  "  But  are  you  not  afraid  that  it  will  fall 
down?"  was  the  second  inquiry.  The  Irishman 
replied:  "  Well,  sir,  I  made  it  five  feet  thick,  and  if 
it  falls  down,  it  will  be  higher  than  it  was  before." 
and  just  so  is  it  with  the  Bible ;  the  more  it  is 
knocked  down  the  higher  it  rises. 

Those  who  seek  its  destruction  surely  are  mad ! 
They  certainly  have  not  calculated  carefully  and 
dispassionately  what  would  have  to  be  done  in 
order  to  accomplish  this  thing.  In  order  to  destroy 
the  Bible,  all  printed  copies  and  parts  of  the  Book, 
and  the  nearly  thirty  thousand  manuscripts  would 
have  to  be  destroyed.  In  order  to  do  this,  those 
who  hate  it  would  have  to  plunge  into 'Arctic  snows ; 
endure  Africa's  heat;  brave  the  perils  of  India's 
jungles  ;  and,  of  savage  tribes  in  the  Islands  of  the 
Sea.  The  rice  fields  of  China  would  have  to  be 
traversed ;  the  mountains  of  South  America 
climbed;  and,  the  contagions  of  tropical  climes 
faced.  Into  the  slums  of  the  world's  great  cities ; 
where  venomous  serpents  lurk  by  the  way ;  and, 
where  storm  and  shipwreck  and  death  hold  sway, 


92  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

wherever  dying  men  are  in  darkness ;  there,  those 
who  love  the  Bible,  have  gone  with  the  Sacred  Vol- 
ume, that  despairing  ones  may  look  up  and  hope. 
But  even  if  these  journeys  were  made,  many  copies 
of  the  Bible  are  unpurchaseable.  If  they  could 
all  be  bought,  those  who  hate  the  Book  have 
not  money  enough  to  buy  them ;  or,  if  they  had, 
they  think  too  much  of  their  money  to  spend  it  in 
that  way.  Many  persons  who  own  copies  would 
not  part  from  them  even  at  the  command  of  earth's 
greatest  monarch.  Beside,  many  copies  could  not 
be  found  though  most  diligent  search  be  made. 

But,  suppose  that  all  printed  copies,  and  manu- 
scripts were  really  burned,  would  the  Bible  be  de- 
stroyed ?  By  no  means.  In  order  to  do  this  thing  it 
would  also  be  necessary  to  go  into  all  the  libraries 
of  earth  and  riddle  and  ruin  almost  every  book 
that  bears  the  imprint  of  brains,  for,  almost  every 
author  of  worth  and  note  has  incorporated  into  his 
writings  some  quotations  from,  or  allusion  to,  the 
Sacred  Volume.  Some  one  has  declared :  "  I  have 
found  four  hundred  and  thirty-six  quotations  from 
the  Bible,  in  the  writings  of  Lord  Alfred  Tennyson." 
Another  declared  :  "  I  have  found  nine  hundred  and 
twenty-six  Scriptural  quotations  and  allusions,  in 
the  writings  of  John  Ruskin."  Lord  Hailes,  the 
antiquarian,  has  declared  :  "  I  have  actually  discov- 
ered the  whole  New  Testament  except  eleven  verses 
in  the  secular  writings  of  the  first  three  centuries  of 
this  era,  and  I  am  satisfied  I  can  find  these  also." 

But,  if  this  too  were  done,  would  the  Bible  be  de- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  93 

stroyed?  By  no  means.  In  order  to  accomplish  its 
destruction  it  would  be  necessary  to  ruin  all  works 
of  the  great  masters  in  painting  and  mosaic ;  for,  are 
not  their  greatest  productions  all,  or  nearly  all, 
Scriptural  incidents,  truths  and  stories? 

But  would  the  Bible  be  destroyed  then?  By  no 
means.  Music,  as  well  as  Art,  would  have  to  be 
brought  low.  Mozart,  Handel  and  Beethoven,  and 
their  illustrious  co-laborers,  would  be  dishonored ; 
for,  are  not  their  majestic  harmonies  inseparably 
united  with  Bible  truth  and  story? 

With  all  this  done, would  the  Bible  be  destroyed? 
By  no  means.  In  order  to  do  this  it  would  be  nec- 
essary to  raze  to  the  dust  of  the  earth  every  church 
and  cathedral  building;  and  the  buildings  of  every 
educational  and  eleemosynary  institution  in  the 
civilized  world ;  for,  these  buildings  are  but  the 
practical  and  tangible  demonstration  of  the  truth 
and  power  of  the  Bible. 

But,  if  this  were  done,  would  the  Bible  be  de- 
stroyed ?  By  no  means.  In  order  to  do  this  it  will 
be  necessary  to  go  into  almost  every  cemetery  of 
earth  and  break  down  every  monument  and  tomb- 
stone ;  for  engraven  upon  these  will  be  found  some 
word,  or  thought,  from  the  Bible. 

And  now,  with  all  this  ruin  wrought,  would  the 
Bible  be  destroyed  ?  By  no  means.  In  order  to  ac- 
complish its  utter  destruction  it  would  be  necessary 
to  annihilate  every  living  Christian,  for  are  they  not 
living  epistles,  "known  and  read  of  all  men?"  I 
know  of  two  men  of  whom  it  was  once  said  by  one 


94  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

who  presumed  to  know,  "  Either  of  them  could  re- 
produce the  Bible  from  memory."  I  have  six  friends 
any  three  of  whom  could  reproduce  the  Bible  if 
every  copy  was  destroyed,  I  have  no  doubt  what- 
ever. 

An  Irishman,  who  was  a  Roman  Catholic,  some- 
where and  how,  became  possessor  of  a  copy  of  the 
King  James'  version  of  the  Bible.  The  Priest  find- 
ing it  out,  called  upon  him  and  demanded  of  him  the 
Book.  It  was  handed  to  him  and  he  at  once  threw 
it  into  the  fire  before  which  they  were  sitting.  They 
both  silently  watched  the  flames  consume  it.  When 
this  was  done  "Pat"  threw'back  his  head  and  laugh- 
ed most  heartily.  "  Why  do  you  laugh,  you  fool  ?  " 
indignantly  asked  the  Priest.  Pat  responded,  "  You 
think  you  have  destroyed  the  Book."  "  Indeed  I 
have,"  said  the  Priest.  "  Indeed  you  haven't,"  re- 
sponded "  Pat,"  "  it  is  written  on  the  fleshly  tables 
of  my  heart  and  you  can't  burn  it." 

But,  after  even  this  was  done,  would  the  Bible  be 
destroyed  ?  Indeed  it  would  not. 

If  this  thing  is  ever  to  be  done,  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  kill  all  unbelievers  including  Infidels  and 
Atheists.  I  never  knew  an  Infidel  or  Atheist 
who  ever  read  the  Bible  through ;  but  somehow,  they 
have  picked  up  some  portion  of  it,  and  it  is  inefface- 
ably  written  upon  the  tablets  of  their  memories. 

When  all  these  things  are  done — and  it  would  be 
necessary  to  do  them  all  in  order  to  destroy  the 
Bible — what  would  we  have  left  ?  You  might  find 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  95 

a  man  on  the  coast  of  Labrador,  with  a  fish-bone 
through  his  nose,  who  never  heard  about  the  Bible  ;  or 
an  almond-eyed  Celestial  beyond  the  fastnesses  of 
the  Himalayas ;  or  a  woolly-headed  pilgrim,  with 
pedals  so  adjusted  that  you  must  needs  look  at  him 
twice  in  order  to  know  which  way  he  is  traveling,  in 
the  heart  of  the  "  Dark  Continent."  But,  as  the 
Moravians  and  Bishop  William  Taylor  are  after 
these,  and  most  certain  to  overtake  them  soon, 
unless  the  Destructionists  desire  to  have  things 
lapse  into  utter  chaos,  they  must  hurry  the  comple- 
tion of  their  work. 

Destroy  the  Bible  !  I  have  stood  upon  the  north 
coast,  lifting  itself  with  imperial  grandeur  from  the 
foundations  of  the  earth,  and  watched  the  swellings 
of  the  sea,  as  with  long,  majestic  and  apparently 
resistless  sweep,  they  hurled  themselves,  with  all 
their  prodigious  energy  against  the  pulseless  bosom 
of  the  giant  buttressed  rocks,  and,  up !  up  ! !  up  ! ! ! 
they  climbed,  until  their  strength  was  well  nigh 
gone,  and  then,  shaking  themselves  into  hoariness, 
fall  backward  into  their  own  watery  depths.  And  so, 
the  surgings  of  infidel  hate,  with  hellish  and  most 
malignant  fury,  have,  for  centuries,  hurled  them- 
selves against  this  book — The  Rock  of  the  Eternal 
Ages  ! — only,  and  always,  to  be  hurled  backward 
into  their  own  dark  and  damning  depths.  But  the 
Old  Rock  still  stands ! 

Julian  the  Apostate,  Celsus,  Porphyry,  Voltaire, 
Gibbon,  Hume,  Bolingbroke,  Chubb,  Rousseau,  Did- 
erot, Paine,  all  men  of  extraordinary  genius,  did 


96  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

their  utmost  to  destroy  the  Bible  ;  but  death  claimed 
them,  and  they  were  compelled  to  acknowledge  the 
claim,  and  they  passed  from  their  labors  to  give  an 
account  of  themselves  to  God.  But  the  Book  still 
lives !  Thrones  have  fallen.  Dynasties  have  per- 
ished. Empires  have  disappeared  in  the  strife  of 
Nations.  Wars  and  tumults  ;  famine  and  pestilence ; 
earthquake  and  storm  ;  hatred  and  death,  have  char- 
acterized the  passing  years.  But,  the  Book  still 
lives ! 

Destroy  the  Bible !  One  might  as  well  talk  of 
puny  man  blotting  the  sun  out  of  the  sky!  Indeed, 
might  as  well  talk  of  annihilating  God  Himself,  for, 
is  it  not  the  Eternal  Logos  ? 

Jesus  said :  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away, 
but  My  Words  shall  not  pass  away."  For 

All  flesh  is  as  grass, 

And  all  the  glory  thereof  as  the  flower  of  grass. 
The  grass  withereth,  and  the  flower  falleth  ; 
But  the  Word  of  the  Lord  abideth  forever. 

(Isa.  40  :  6-8  ;  i  Peter  i  :  24,  25.) 

O,  Thou  blessed  Word  of  God !  Thou  didst 
speak  to  me,  in  my  ladhood,  from  fire-crowned, 
smoke-wreathed  Sinai,  in  thunder,  trumpet  tones,  of 
law,  of  condemnation  and  death.  And  then,  when 
overwhelmed  with  a  sense  of  my  guilt  and  peril,  I 
said,  "  Woe  is  me ! "  for  I  am  undone  and  without 
help !  In  that  dark  hour,  Thou  didst  speak  to  me, 
from  Calvary's  brow,  in  tones  far  sweeter  than  a 
mother's  lullaby,  of  One  who  was  judged  for 
me, — "  Suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  un- 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  97 

just,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God ; "  thus  be- 
coming "  The  end  of  the  law  unto  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth,"  and  faith,  unquestioning, 
said,  This  Word  of  the  Gospel  is  true !  And  Life, 
eternal  throbbed  through  my  whole  being,  and  hope, 
most  glorious,  has  ever  since  been  mine.  I 
am  here  in  an  enemy's  country.  He  has  set  un- 
numbered snares  and  pitfalls  to  entrap  me  and 
cause  me  to  stumble.  But  Thou  art  "A  lamp 
unto  my  feet  and  a  light  unto  my  path," 
that  I  may  see  how  to  safely  make  my  way  to  the 
hills  of  God.  But  for  Thee,  I  could  not  know  the 
will  and  mind  of  God  concerning  me.  Thou  art 
"  The  rejoicing  of  my  heart ;  "  for  "  I  rejoice,"  in 
Thee,  "  As  one  that  findeth  great  spoil."  Thou  art 
more  to  me  "  Than  my  necessary  food."  Thou  art 
"  Sweeter  "  to  me  "  Than  honey,  and  than  the  drip- 
pings of  the  honey  comb."  "  O  how  love  I  "  Thee ! 
"  I  will  ever  make  Thee  the  Man  of  my  counsel," 
and  the  strength  of  my  years.  My  father  loved 
Thee,  and  from  his  boyhood  followed  in  Thy  pre- 
cepts to  do  them  ;  and,  when  dying  he  clasped  Thee 
to  his  heart ;  and,  when  we  laid  him  away,  to  rest 
until  Jesus  comes,  we  placed  Thee  under  his  head 
for  a  pillow.  My  dear  mother  has  loved  Thee  for 
quite  seventy  years,  and  hoped  in  Thy  truth ;  and, 
now,  after  nearly  four  score  years  of  journeying,  she 
sits  where  the  shadows  are  lengthening  into  twilight, 
rejoicing  the  while  the  light  from  the  throne  of  God 
falls  upon  her  sweet  though  furrowed  face.  The 
best  and  truest  of  all  ages  have  loved  Thee.  I  love 


98  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Thee !  If  there  were  one  drop  of  blood  in  my  veins 
that  did  not  throb  in  intensest  loyality  to  Thee,  I 
would  let  it  out  if  it  were  the  last.  Go  on  Thy  way, 
Thou  message  from  the  skies ;  dissipate  earth's 
darkness  and  gloom ;  banish  ignorance  and  super- 
stition, and  everywhere,  among  all  peoples,  let  Thy 
cleansing,  saving  power  be  felt,  until  the  whole 
world  shall  be  filled  with  "  The  light  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ." 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  99 

CHAPTER  X. 

SUPPLEMENTAL  DISCUSSION — THE    PENTATEUCH. 

The  Higher  Critics  are  nearly  of  one  mind  as  to 
the  "  Compilation  Theory," — that  is,  they  nearly  all 
accept  it.  But,  this  family  of  Hupfelds,  though  so 
young,  has  grown  almost  beyond  recognition,  and 
continues  to  increase.  The  case  as  it  now  stands,  is 
about  as  follows  :  They  hold  that  those  portions  of 
the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible  where  the  name  of 
God  (Elohim)  is  used,  were  written  by  an  Elohistic 
writer,  whom  they  designate  as  E.  That  the  pas- 
sages where  the  name  Lord  (Jehovah)  is  used,  were 
written  by  a  Jehovistic  writer,  whom  they 
designate  as  J.  The  absurdity  of  such  a  division 
of  these  sacred  writings  was  made  evident,  when  at- 
tention was  called  to  the  fact  that  these  names  were 
used  again  and  again,  not  only  in  the  same  para- 
graph, but  in  the  same  sentence,  as  for  instance : 
Gen.  7:16,  "And  they  that  went  in,  went  in  male 
and  female  of  all  flesh,  as  Elohim  commanded  him  : 
and  Jehovah  shut  him  in."  Gen.  24 :  3,  "And  I  will 
make  thee  swear  by  Jehovah,  the  Elohim  of 
heaven."  And,  Gen.  28:  21.  "  Then  shall  Jehovah 
be  my  Elohim."  Common  sense  demanded,  at  this 
point,  that  the  Critics  should  abandon  their  theory ; 
but,  no,  they  simply  said :  "Such  passages  prove 
that  there  was  a  third  writer,  combining  the  styles  of 
the  '  Elohistic  '  and  '  Jehovistic  '  writers,  and  we  will 
call  Him  J.  E." 


100  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Then  these  gentlemen  thought  they  discovered 
that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  about  half  of  Exo- 
dus and  five-sixths  of  Leviticus  were  written  about 
eight  hundred  years  after  Moses ;  and,  because  they 
treated  largely  of  priestly  legislation,  therefore,  they 
must  have  been  written  by  one  person ;  and  inas- 
much as  the  names  Elohim  and  Jehovah  occur 
many,  many  times  in  these  portions  of  the  Word, 
they  call  these  writings  the  "  Priest's  Code,"  and  the 
writer  the  Priestly  Elhoist,  or  the  P.  E. 

Then  they  say  a  "  Deutronomist"  writer  wrote  all 
the  later  legislative  portions  of  the  books,  and  they 
call  him  D. 

After  the  Children  of  Israel  returned  from  the 
Babylonish  Captivity,  a  "  Redactor,"  whom  they  call 
R.,  redacted  all  these  writings  into  their  present 
shape ;  and  that,  which  to  an  ordinary  mind  consti- 
tute* a  sublime  unity,  the  Pentateuch,  was  thus 
edited. 

It  is  true  that  a  very  few  of  these  gentlemen  be- 
lieve that  Moses  did  write  a  small  portion  of  these 
five  books.  Some  say  ten  chapters ;  some  more, 
some  less ;  but,  the  vast  majority  insist  that  Moses 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  these  writings. 
One  of  the  arguments  against  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship is  this  :  that  writing  was  not  known  in  the  days 
of  Moses.  Unfortunately  for  this,  in  explorations 
made  recently  in  Egypt,  extensive  correspondence 
was  discovered,  evidently  written  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before  the  time  of  Moses.  Thus  does 
the  Almighty  Himself  come  to  the  rescue  of  His 


YS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  101 

own  Word ;  and  causes  the  very  stones  to  speak  in 
refutation  of  theories  advanced  by  our  rationalistic 
critics. 

These  gentlemen  don't  pretend  to  tell  us  who 
are  E.,  and  J.,  and  J.  E.,  and  P.  E.  and  D.,  and  R. 
They  have  no  proof  that  such  persons  ever  existed. 
They  are  only  imaginary  personages.  The  Critics 
simply  insist  that  Moses  did  not  write  these  books ; 
and,  as  it  is  pretty  certain  that  somebody  did,  they 
invented  writers  to  suit  their  views  of  the  case.  They 
are  pure  fabrications. 

Joshua,  Caleb,  Gideon,  Samuel,  David,  Solomon, 
The  Prophets,  Jesus,  Peter,  John,  James,  Jude  and 
Paul,  knew  nothing  whatever  of  E.,  J.,  J  E.,  P.  E., 
D.,  and  R.  The  Church  Fathers  and  Reformers 
were  in  like  ignorance  of  their  existence.  And  fifty 
years  hence  they  will  not  be  known,  or  thought  of, 
save  as  among  the  curious  vagaries  of  human  con- 
ceits. 

Let  us  now  turn  from  the  opinions  and  conjectures 
of  men,  to  the  explicit  testimony  of  the  Highest 
Critics. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

In  Matt,  viii,  4,  He  said  :  "  Moses  commanded  V 
the  things  in  Lev.  xiv,  1-12.  In  Matt,  xix,  7,  8,  He 
said :  "  Moses  commanded "  and  "  Moses  *  *  * 
suffered  you  "  the  things  mentioned  in  Deut.  xxiv, 
i.  In  Mark  vii,  10,  He  said  :  Moses  said,  Honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother,"  quoting  from  Exod.  xx,  10. 
In  Mark  xii,  26,  He  said :  "  Have  ye  not  read  in 
the  book  of  Moses  ?  "  and  then  quotes  Exod.  iii,  6. 


10?  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

In  John  vii,  19,22,  23,  He  said:  "Did  not  Moses 
give  you  the  law  ?  *  *  *  Moses  therefore  gave  unto 
you  circumcision,  *  *  *  the  law  of  Moses."  This 
law  is  recorded  in  Lev.  xii,  3. 

Of  course  those  who  accept  the  words  of  Jesus  as 
true  will  not  doubt  that  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  but  those  who  disbelieve  it  will  not  accept 
the  testimony  of  Jesus,  for  He  said :  "  For  had  ye 
believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  Me  ;  for  he 
wrote  of  Me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings, 
how  shall  ye  believe  My  words?"  (John  v,  46,  47.) 

Dr.  Leacock  has  put  the  case  in  the  following 
manner,  and  it  is  none  too  emphatic  or  strong : 

"Accepting  the  judgment  of  the  Critics,  we  have 
before  us  two  alternatives  regarding  Jesus:  He  was 
either  ignorant  of  the  facts,  and  hence  taught  error 
under  a  misapprehension ;  or  else  He  knew  the 
facts,  and  knowingly  taught  what  was  false,  and 
thus  helped  to  fasten  a  fraud  and  a  lie  upon  His 
nation  and  His  after  Church. 

"  It  is  impossible  to  accept  the  first  of  these  sup- 
positions. He  to  whom  the  Spirit  was  given  with- 
out measure — He  who  needed  not  that  any  should 
testify  of  man,  for  He  knew  what  was  in  man — He 
who,  before  Abraham  was  born,  had  existence — 
He  who  was  with  the  Father  from  the  beginning, 
and  was  before  all  things,  He  surely  could  not  be 
ignorant  of  the  true  history  of  these  books.  If 
therefore  we  accept  Jesus  as  the  only  begotten  Son, 
and  one  with  the  Father,  we  must  dismiss  this  first 
supposition  concerning  Him. 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  103 

"  We  turn  then  to  the  other  proposition,  viz.,  that 
knowing  the  facts  He  suppressed  them,  and  taught 
what  He  knew  to  be  false,  and  linked  Himself  with 
those  who  had  conspired  to  fasten  upon  the  Jewish 
nation  and  upon  the  world,  a  fraud  and  a  lie.  Can 
this  be  so  ?  Is  Jesus  a  fraud  ?  Is  he  a  liar?  Then 
good-bye  to  His  religion.  If  he  is  false  in  one  par- 
ticular, why  not  in  all  ?  We  have  no  security.  The 
foundations  are  swept  away,  for  everything  centers 
in  Him  and  depends  upon  His  truthfulness.  If  He 
is  not  " the  truth"  then  our  hope  is  gone.  Let  us 
eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die. 

"  This  is  disaster  overwhelming  that  these  learned 
critics  are  trying  to  bring  upon  us.  They  remind 
us  of  poor  blind  Samson  putting  forth  his  strength 
to  drag  down  the  columns  that  supported  the  roof 
over  his  head.  There  is  this  difference — they  know 
not  what  they  do.  Nor  have  they  Samson's 
strength.  We  may  dismiss  our  fears,  and  still  look 
to  Jesus  with  unshaken  confidence.  "  Heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away ;  but  My  words  shall  not  pass 
away." 

THE   TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

The  internal  evidence,  in  part,  is  as  follows :  In 
Exodus  17:  14,  He  said:  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  [the]  Book, 
and  rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua."  In  Exodus 
34 :  27-28,  He  said :  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Write  thou  these  words :  for  after  the  tenor 
of  these  words  have  I  made  a  covenant  with  thee 


104  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

and  with  Israel ;  *  *  *  and  he  wrote  upon  the 
tables  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  command- 
ments" (words).  In  Num.  33:  2,  He  said:  "And 
Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to  their  jour- 
neys." In  Deut.  31:9,  22-24,  He  said :  "And  Moses 
wrote  this  law.  *  *  *  .  Moses  therefore  wrote 
this  song  the  same  day.  *  *  *  When  Moses 
had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law 
in  a  [the]  Book." 

The  things  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses,  in 
the  above  passages,  relate  to  the  giving  of  the  law, 
the  wars,  various  festivals,  etc.,  belonging  to  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  during  the  desert  wanderings. 

In  Josh,  ii  :  12,  he  said:  "As  Moses  com- 
manded" (See  Deut.  7  :  1-2).  In  Judges  I  :  20,  he 
said :  "As  Moses  had  spoken"  (see  Deut.  I  :  36). 
In  i  Kings  8 :  53,  he  said :  "Thou  spakest  by  the 
hand  of  Moses."  Reference  is  here  made  to  Deut. 
12:  10-11.  In  i  Chron.  6:49,  the  things  mentioned 
are  in  Lev.  i :  1-9,  and  it  is  declared  that  "  Moses 
*  *  *  commanded  it."  In  2  Chron.  33  :  8,  we 
have  the  statement :  "  The  statutes  and  ordinances 
by  the  hand  of  Moses  ;"  in  chap.  34  :  14,  "  The 
book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  given  by  Moses ;  "  and 
in  chap.  35  :  6:  "According  to  the  word  of  the 
Lord  by  the  hand  of  Moses."  Reference  in  these 
three  passages  is  made  to  Exod.  12.  In  Ezra  3:2, 
we  have  the  statement  that  Deut.  12,  5-6,  was  given 
by  Moses.  In  Neh.  8 :  14,  we  are  informed  that 
Lev.  23,  34-43,  and  Deut.  16:  13,  were  by  the 
"  hand  of  Moses ;"  and  in  chap.  9  :  14,  it  is  stated 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  105 

that  Exod.  20 :  8,  was  also  "  by  the  hand  of  Moses." 
Dan.  9,  11-13,  tells  us  that  Deut.  28:  15-68,  and 
Lev.  26  :  14-39,  are  "  m  the  law  of  Moses." 

Acts  3  :  22,  says :  "  Moses  indeed  said,"  and  the 
quotation  is  from  Deut.  18  :  15.  In  Rom.  10  :  5, 
(Rev.  Ver.),  we  have  :  "  For  Moses  writeth"  (see 
Lev.  18  :  5);  and  in  chap.  10  :  19,  it  is  declared: 
"  Moses  said  "  (Deut.  32  :  21.)  In  i  Cor.  9:9,  he 
said  :  "  It  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,"  and  then 
quotes  Deut.  25:  4.  In  2  Cor.  3:  15,  he  said: 
"  Whensoever  Moses  is  read."  The  things  of  which 
he  here  speaks  are  found  in  Exod.  34  :  29-35.  In 
Heb.  9 :  19,  reference  is  made  to  Exod.  24  :  4-8, 
where  it  is  said  :  "And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of 
the  Lord."  In  Rev.  15:  3  he  says  that  Deut.  32: 
1-43,  or  Exod.  15  :  1-18,  is  "the  song  of  Moses." 

In  the  above  citations  I  have  not  exhausted  the 
testimony  of  the  Highest  Critics  on  this  subject  by 
any  means ;  nor  have  I  given  the  testimony  of  the 
Sadducees,  who  declared  that  Moses  wrote  Deut. 
25  : 5  (see  Matt.  22  :  24) ;  nor  of  the  Pharisees,  who 
said  Lev.  12:2  was  given  by  Moses  (see  Luke 
2  :  22) ;  nor  of  John  the  Baptist,  who  said :  "  The 
law  was  given  by  Moses"  (John  I  :  17);  nor  yet  of 
Philip,  who  said :  "  We  have  found  Him  of  whom 
Moses  *  *  *  did  write "  (John  i  :  45),  all  of 
whom  were  certainly  as  well  qualified  to  testify  on 
this  subject  as  the  Higher  Critics. 

Of  course,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will 
not  count  with  most  of  these  gentlemen,  because 
they  practically  deny  His  office  work  in  these  words. 


106  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

The  fact  is,  they  are  compelled  to  deny  the  super- 
natural in  the  Bible.  They  dare  not  say  the  Bible 
is  uninspired ;  and  so  they  have  certain  theories 
which  at  the  bottom,  eliminate  all  supernatural 
elements,  and  practically  deny  real  inspiration. 
Hence  the  vigor  of  their  assaults  upon  verbal  inspi- 
ration. Their  working  postulates  degrade  the  Bible 
to  the  level  of  human  productions.  They  will, 
therefore,  brush  aside  these  testimonies  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  by  insisting  that,  if  He  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  matter,  He  was  so  completely  dominated 
by  the  human  characteristics  of  the  writers,  that 
the  accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  record,  cannot 
be  relied  upon.  This  is,  logically,  the  inevitable  re- 
sult of  their  theories  of  inspiration. 

As  between  the  testimony  of  the  Highest  and 
"  Higher  Critics,"  no  one  who  is  loyal  to  God's 
Holy  Word,  will  hesitate  for  a  single  moment  to 
choose.  No  one  appreciates  more  than  I  the  great 
labor  of  those  scholarly  men  who  have  devoted  their 
great  learning,  with  indomitable  wills,  to  ascertain 
the  exact  text  of  the  Scriptures  ;  but,  when  they 
set  up  their  judgment  against  the  plain  and  explicit 
statements  of  the  Highest  Critics,  then  is  "scholar- 
ship run  mad,"  and  all  Christians  should  part  com- 
pany with  them. 

Not  a  few  ministers  study  the  "  Higher  Critics" 
more  than  the  Highest.  There  is  a  notion  among 
some  of  them  that,  unless  they  agree  with  the  con- 
clusions of  these  learned  men,  they  will  not  them- 
selves be  considered  scholarly.  Just  here  is  a  very 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  107 

great  peril.  The  minister,  of  all  men,  ought  to  be 
careful  to  "prove  all  things,"  and  "hold  fast  that 
which  is  good,"  remembering  that  "  If  we  receive 
the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater." 

Human  leadership  in  such  matters  is  unsafe.  We 
can  know  the  truth  without  the  "  Higher  Critics." 
Jesus  said :  "  Howbeit  when  He  the  Spirit  of  truth 
is  come  He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth"  (John  16 : 
13.)  And  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  this: 
"  But  the  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of  Him 
abideth  in  you,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach 
you  :  but  as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  of 
all  things  and  is  truth,  and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it 
hath  taught  you,  ye  shall  abide  in  Him  "  (i  John  2  : 
27.) 

The  numerous  and  persistent  attacks  made  upon 
the  integrity  of  the  Pentateuch  are  not  surprising 
when  we  remember  the  defeat  Satan  suffered  in  con- 
tending with  Michael  the  archangel  for  possession  of 
the  body  of  Moses,  and  the  repulse  Jesus  gave  him 
in  the  wilderness  struggle,  with  the  "  Sword  of  the 
Spirit,"  by  quoting  three  times  from  Deuteronomy. 

The  Higher  Criticism  is  having  full  swing  just 
now.  There  is  much  of  "a  fad  "  in  it.  It  will  soon 
be  a  curiosity  among  wornout  speculations. 

Long  after  the  present  school  of  "  Higher  Critics" 
shall  be  forever  forgotten,  the  testimony  of  the 
Highest  Critics  as  to  the  editorship  of  the  Pentateu- 
chal  books  will  be  believed  by  the  good  and  true  oi 
all  nations.  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  abideth  for- 
ever." Let  us  possess  our  souls  in  patience. 
8 


108  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


CHAPTER  XI. 

JOB. 

Concerning  the  book  of  Job  the  Higher  Critics 
teach  that  it  is  a  fictitious  drama,  representing  an 
Oriental  debate  between  dark  eyed  Sheiks  in  their 
tent,  on  the  ways  of  Providence  or  the  mysteries  of 
God's  moral  administration.  They  say  it  is  only 
fictitious  like  the  parables  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  that  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  in  the  New. 
The  view  to-day  is,  that  it  was  a  part  of  the 
Chochma  or  Wisdom  Literature,  and  written  either 
in  the  time  of  Solomon,  or  in  post-exile  times. 

Some  of  the  Critics,  however,  quote  the  different 
views  of  the  Talmud  as  to  the  authorship  of  the 
Book.  Some  saying  it  was  composed  in  the  time  of 
Moses  and  by  him  ;  others  in  time  of  Abraham ; 
others  in  time  of  Jacob ;  others  in  time  of  Esther ; 
and  still  others  in  time  of  David.  All  these,  save 
that  it  was  written  in  time  of  Moses,  and  by  Moses, 
are  the  merest  conceits.  It  is  exceeding  curious  to 
notice  how  these  critics  despise  all  reference  to  the 
Talmud  as  worthless  when  it  does  not  support  their 
views,  but  cling  to  it  as  deserving  of  consideration 
when  it  does.  The  fatal  postulate  with  the  Higher 
Critics  now,  is  that  it  makes  no  difference  who  wrote 
the  Biblical  Books  !  They  teach  that  the  authority 
of  any  part  of  the  Bible  does  not  depend  upon  the 
knowledge  of  the  "Authorship,"  but  only  on  the 


F5.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  109 

fact  that  it  is  in  the  Canon.  Its  claim  to  a  place  in 
the  Canon  does  not  rest  upon  its  authorship.  This 
is  destructive  to  the  last  degree,  of  the  value  of  the 
tradition  of  the  church,  and  of  the  authority  of  the 
Apostles.  Such  a  rule  would  admit  the  Apocrypha 
into  the  Canon.  If  the  Jewish  Church  ever  received 
a  Book  into  the  Canon,  it  was  because  its  author  was 
known  as  an  inspired  writer.  We  of  to-day  may 
not  have  the  evidence  who  that  author  was ;  but  the 
Church  that  received  the  Book  as  a  part  of  God's 
Word  had  it.  The  early  tradition  of  the  Church  is 
therefore  of  great  value,  and  not  to  be  set  aside  by 
speculative  criticism  of  men  who  hold  lightly  the 
doctrine  of  Inspiration. 

There  are,  apparently,  a  few  valid  reasons  for  be- 
lieving that  Moses  was  the  writer  of  the  Book; 
but,  the  preponderance  of  evidence  is  against  such 
view  and  clearly  in  favor  of  a  pre-Mosaic  author- 
ship. 

There  is  not  sufficient  proof  either  from  the 
literary  style,  or  contents,  or  form,  that  it  was  a 
production  written  after  the  entrance  into  Canaan. 
It  belongs  on  its  very  face  to  the  times  of  the 
Patriarchs,  and  the  philosophical  discussions  of  the 
"  Sons  of  the  East."  It  was  not  possible  for  a  Jew, 
living  in  Solomonian  or  post-exile  times,  in  Pales- 
tine, to  produce  a  work  like  this.  No  post-Solo- 
monian  writer  could  reproduce  the  times  before 
Moses  as  here ;  nor  keep  himself  so  completely  as 
not  to  betray  by  something  the  Hebrew  times  in 
which  he  lived.  The  whole  physiognomy  of  the 


110  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Book  is  Arabian,  is  of  the  East,  and  the  desert, 
in  its  minutest  features,  without  one  solitary  kind 
of  Jewish  life,  custom  or  mode  of  thought.  The 
entire -manner  of  discussion  is  as  different  from  the 
Jewish  manner  of  debate,  as  it  is  from  the  manner 
of  discussion  among  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans. 

The  following  are  some  of  many  specific  reasons 
for  believing  that  the  Book  is  pre-Mosaic : 

First — The  length  of  life  peculiar  to  the  time. 

Second — The  worship  of  Sun,  Moon  and  Stars 
and  no  mention  of  idols. 

Third — Riches  reckoned  by  cattle. 

Fourth — The  head  of  the  family  is  priest. 

Fifth — The  kind  of  coin  mentioned. 

Sixth — The  musical  instruments  mentioned. 

Seventh — No  sacrifices  such  as  are  named  in  the 
Pentateuch  mentioned. 

Eighth — No  reference,  whatever,  to  the  Mosaic  law. 

Ninth — No  reference  to  the  Exodus.  When  it  is 
remembered  that  no  fact  in  ancient  Jewish  history 
is  so  frequently  and  prominently  referred  to  in 
nearly  all  the  Old  Testament  books,  as  this,  the 
entire  absence  of  any  statement  concerning  this  most 
important  fact  in  the  history  of  God's  chosen 
people,  or  allusion  to  it  in  Job,  is  an  unanswerable 
argument  in  favor  of  the  un-Jewish  and  pre-Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Book. 

Tenth — No  allusion  to  a  Jew,  or  a  Hebrew,  or  the 
Holy  land,  or  Jerusalem,  or  the  Tabernacle,  or  the 
Temple.  All  this  adds  emphasis  to  the  ninth  argu- 
ment, and  is  strikingly  significant. 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  Ill 

Eleventh — The  expression  "  Sons  of  God." 

Twelfth — The  philosophy  of  Temah. 

Thirteenth — The  manner  of  discussion. 

Fourteenth — It  is  highly  probable  that  some  of  the 
parties  who  are  prominently  named  in  Job  were 
identified  with  the  times  immediately  following 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  In  Gen.  36  :  4,  10, 
mention  is  made  of  Eliphaz,  as  a  son  of  Esau.  And 
Esau  and  his  descendants  lived  in  Mount  Seir  and 
beyond  in  the  way  of  the  east.  "  Bildad  the 
Shuhite, '  whose  appellation,  "  the  Shuhite,"  may 
connect  him  with  Shuah,  the  sixth  son  of  Abraham 
by  Keturah  (Gen.  25  :  2).  The  sons  of  Abraham  by 
Keturah  occupied  the  country  towards  the  Persian 
Gulf.  Also  "  Elihu  the  Buzite."  If  he  descended 
from  "  Buz,"  a  son  of  Nahor,  as  seems  quite  proba- 
ble— See  Gen.  22  :2i — he  was  a  nephew  of  Abra- 
ham. The  family  of  "  Buz "  also  settled  in  the 
borders  of  the  Arabian  desert.  See  Jer.  25  :  23.  In 
Gen.  10:  29,  and  i  Chron.  1 :  23,  mention  is  made  of 
Jobab,  the  son  of  Zerah,  the  son  of  Esau.  In 
Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  we  are  told  :  "  That  in  a 
notice  appended  to  the  Alexandrian  version  it  is 
stated:  "  He  (Job)  bore  previously  the  name  of 
Jobab ;  "  and  that  a  tradition  adopted  by  the  Jews 
and  some  Christian  Fathers,  identified  Job  with 
Jobab,  prince  of  Edom,  mentioned  in  Gen.  36 :  33. 
The  names  of  Abram,  Jacob  and  Joshua  were 
changed ;  and,  taking  the  above-mentioned  things 
into  the  account  it  is  very  probable  that  Job  was 
once  called  Jobab.  This  places  him  in  the  time  of 


112  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Eliphaz,  Bildad  and  Elihu,  all  of  whom  were,  with- 
out doubt,  descendants  of  Abraham  and  sons  of  the 
east.  The  Book  itself  is  identified  with  these  per- 
sonages and  times.  Ewald  asserts  very  positively 
that  in  all  the  descriptions  of  manners  and  customs, 
domestic,  social  and  political,  and  even  in  the 
indirect  allusions  and  illustrations,  the  genuine  col- 
oring of  the  age  of  Job  is  of  the  period  between 
Abraham  and  Moses ;  and  that  all  historical  exam- 
ples and  allusions  are  taken  exclusively  from  patri- 
archal times.  M.  Renan,  Hahn,  Schlottman,  and 
other  critics  fully  agree  with  this  opinion. 

Fifteenth — In  Job  30:  1-7,  the  Bushmen  are  men- 
tioned. They  belonged  to  a  very  early  age,  and 
doubtless  disappeared  before  the  time  of  Moses. 
The  plain  inference  from  the  above  passage  is,  that 
the  writer  must  have  known  them  from  his  own  per- 
sonal observation. 

The  position  of  the  Critics  that  this  Book  is  a  par- 
able, is,  like  most  of  their  working  rules,  but  an  au- 
dacious assumption.  The  personality  of  Job  is  clear- 
ly and  most  positively  established  by  the  Lord  God. 
In  Ezekiel  14:  14  it  is  said:  "  Though  these  three 
men,  Noah,  Daniel  and  Job  were  in  it  (the  land  of 
Israel),  they  should  deliver  but  their  own  souls  by 
their  righteousness,  saith  the  Lord  God."  Mark,  it 
is  "  The  Lord  God  "  who  here  speaks  ;  and  what  He 
says  utterly  refutes  the  assumption  of  the  Critics 
that  Job  is  a  "  Fictitious  character." 

Besides  this,  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  Apostle 
James,  speaks  thus  upon  this  matter :  "  Ye  have 


FS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  113 

heard  of  the  patience  of  Job,  and  have  seen  the 
end  of  the  Lord,  that  the  Lord  is  very  pitiful,  and 
of  tender  mercy."  Jas.  v:  n.  Can  any  one  with 
unbiased  and  unprejudiced  mind  read  the  above 
quotation  and  doubt  the  personality  of  Job  ?  Is  it 
possible  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  any  other  than 
a  historical  person  in  mind  when  He  indited  these 
words  ? 

Parables  were  used  by  our  Lord  as  illustrations. 
In  their  structure  and  distinctive  characteristics  they 
are  uniformly  and  as  truly  unlike  the  Book  of  Job 
as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Therefore  the  dec- 
laration that  the  Book  is  a  parable  is  a  bare  and 
bold  assumption. 

The  Book  of  Job  belongs  to  a  time  far  too  early 
for  works  of  fiction.  The  earliest  writings  are 
chronological  and  historical.  It  is  demonstrably 
true  that  fiction  belongs  to  a  much  later  age — to 
a  time  when  authorship,  by  well  known  laws  of  de- 
velopment, became  an  art.  In  order  to  meet  this 
argument,  the  Critics  are  compelled  to  assign  the 
work  to  post-exile  times. 

The  singular  air  of  reality  in  the  entire  record 
makes  it  quite  improbable  that  any  one  with  an 
unbiased  mind  could  believe  it  to  be  fictitious.  If 
it  is  fictitious  a  Jew  must  have  written  it.  Uz  was 
in  no  way  associated  with  Israelitish  history.  These 
peoples  were  unfriendly,  if  not,  indeed  enemies. 
Is  it  thinkable  that  a  Jew  would  have  made  such 
heroes  as  this  Book  contains  of  an  unfriendly  race  ? 

The  uniqueness,  beauty  and  incomparable  merits 


114  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

of  the  work  all  must  admit.  Carlyle  says :  "Apart 
from  all  theories  about  it,  I  call  the  Book  of  Job 
one  of  the  grandest  things  ever  written  with  a 
pen."  Froude  speaks  of  Job  as  a  "  Book  of  which 
it  is  to  say  little  to  call  it  unequaled  of  its  kind, 
and  which  will  one  day,  perhaps,  when  it  is  al- 
lowed to  stand  on  its  own  merits,  be  seen  towering 
up  alone,  far  away  above  all  the  poetry  of  the 
world."  The  Critics  ignore  the  Supernatural  in 
their  working  rules.  The  Sacred  Writings  are  sub- 
jected to  the  same  tests  as  the  writings  of  men, 
and  thus  degraded  to  the  same  level.  But  these 
gentlemen  don't  try  to  explain  why  this  oldest 
writing  stands  to-day  unequaled  as  a  literary  pro- 
duction and  commands  such  testimonies  as  the 
above.  Judged  by  any  established  law  of  criticism, 
of  the  progress  and  development  of  literature,  and 
only  one  conclusion  can  be  reached,  viz.:  it  has  a 
Supernatural  origin — God  is  its  Author. 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  115 

CHAPTER   XII. 

THE     PSALMS. 

It  is  a  first  principle  with  the  "  Higher  Critics  "  to 
set  aside  even  the  most  venerated  and  well  estab- 
lished tradition  and  belief  of  the  Jewish  Church  as 
to  the  authorship  and  purport  of  the  Psalms,  and 
decide  for  themselves,  their  date,  origin,  occasion, 
authorship  and  meaning  on  purely  internal  grounds, 
and  their  own  evolutionary  construction  of  the  his- 
tory of  Israel.  The  so  called  "  Scientific  Criticism" 
that  assigned  the  Pentateuch  to  unknown  authors 
and  redactors  from  eight  hundred  to  one  thousand 
years  after  Moses  was  dead,  finds  no  difficulty  in 
doing  a  like  service  for  the  Psalms  of  King  David. 
The  deniers  of  Supernatural  Inspiration,  who  limit 
the  prophetic  gift,  or  foreknowledge  of  the  Prophet 
to  his  own  "  Historical  situation,"  find  it  easy  not  only 
to  put  David's  Harp  in  the  hands  of  some  romantic 
Maccabean,  but  to  protest  that  David  never  wrote 
the  Psalms  which  are  expressly  ascribed  to  him,  in 
the  titles,  although  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  say 
he  did !  For  instance,  since  their  imaginary  "Elo- 
histic writer"  as  they  call  him,  i.  <?.,  the  author  of 
Psalms  where  the  name  God  is  used,  did  not  live 
until  after  the  exile,  it  is  a  necessity  with  them  to  put 
their  "God-Psalms "as  they  call  them  down,  at  as 
low  a  date  as  possible,  even  into  Maccabean  times, 
/.  e.y  170-160  B.C.  When  evangelical  men  object  to 
these  critics  that  in  many  of  the  Davidic  Psalms  and 


116  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

which  are  expressly  ascribed  to  David,  there  are 
clear  references  to  the  Pentateuch  and  a  constant 
use  of  the  name  "  Elohim,"  they  meet  the  objection 
by  simply  saying  that  David  never  wrote  these 
Psalms,  and  that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  were  mis- 
taken in  thinking  that  he  did  !  They  take  advantage 
of  the  fact  that  quite  a  number  of  the  Psalms  are 
anonymous.  They  do  more ;  they  are  so  bold  as  to 
contradict  the  titles  of  Psalms  that  are  not  anony- 
mous. They  say  that  all  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  are 
pure  inventions  of  late  redactors  or  compilers.  They 
say  the  Hebrew  Psalter  gives  to  David  fewer  Psalms 
than  the  Septuagent  Version  without  explaining 
why.  They  cite  the  fancies  of  some  Talmudist  and 
a  few  evangelical  commentators,  as  to  certain 
Psalms,  and  represent  as  their  critical  conviction 
what  was  merely  a  transient  speculation.  They 
review  the  judgment  of  the  official  custodians  of  the 
Sacred  Oracles,  the  judgment  of  centuries,  and  assert 
that,  because  successive  editions  of  the  Psalms  were 
made  as  the  Psalmody  increased,  therefore  the  men 
of  Solomon's  time,  and  Hezekiah's  time,  and  Ezra's 
and  Nehemiah's  time,  were  ignorant  of  just  what 
Psalms  David  wrote.  These  collectors  made  blun- 
ders, it  is  said,  in  their  selections,  as  they  did  in  their 
titles,  and  transmitted  to  us  a  Psalter  the  arrange- 
ment and  contents  of  which  not  only  deceived  the 
Jewish  people,  the  Sanhedrim,  the  Scribes,  the 
Elders  and  the  Priests,  but  Christ,  the  Apostles 
and  the  whole  Christian  Church,  and  will  not 
stand  the  tests  of  literary  and  historical  criticism 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  117 

for  one  hour !  Some  of  them  go  so  far  as  to  say 
that  Christ  and  His  Apostles  were  the  dupes  of  the 
later  synagogue,  and  of  Scribes  who  tampered  with 
the  Hebrew  Bible  ;  and  that  they  accommodated 
themselves  to  the  "  tendency  of  the  times  which 
was  to  ascribe  everything  to  Moses  or  David." 

The  audacity  of  some  of  these  gentlemen  is  indeed 
startling.  That  which  is  sacred  to  the  thought  and 
heart  of  millions  of  the  most  holy  and  intelligent 
people  the  world  over,  and,  which  has  been  vener- 
ated for  ages,  is  disposed  of  with  as  little  ceremony 
as  though  it  were  a  fable,  or,  they,  themselves,  were 
the  disciples  of  Voltaire.  Their  arbitrary  disposi- 
tion of  the  traditions  of  the  church  is  alarming;  and, 
their  arrogant  assumption  that  scholarship  is  all 
with  them,  is  the  most  stupendous  specimen  of 
"  cheek,"  of  modern  times. 

Let  us  now  look  into  the  case  and  then  examine 
the  testimony  of  the  Highest  Critics.  The  three- 
fold division  of  the  Old  Testament  was  "  Moses, 
the  Prophets  and  the  Writings."  "  Moses"  meant 
the  Pentateuch.  The  "  Prophets  "  meant  not  only 
the  prophetical  but  also  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  for  the  Prophets  were  the  Histori- 
ographers of  Israel.  The  "  Psalms  "  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  third  great  division  which  included  all 
the  rest  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  gave  to  the 
whole  collection  their  name.  Besides  this  they  were 
called  simply  the  "  Writings  "  (Kethubim)  or  "  Ha- 
giographa,"  the  "  Sacred  Writings."  The  fact  that 
the  Psalms  were  classed  with  the  "  Kethubim,"  or 


118  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

third  great  division — as  was  also  th*e  prophecy  of 
Daniel — did  not  mean  that  this  division  was  inferior 
in  authority  to  the  preceding,  for  "  every  Scripture 
is  God-breathed,"  and  was  so  regarded  by  the  Jews. 
From  Moses  to  Malachi  all  was  of  divine  authority. 
The  inspiration  of  the  Word  of  God  is  not  the 
illumination  of  mere  natural  genius  such  as  we  see 
in  Homer,  Dante,  or  Milton,  but  was  a  supernatural 
enduement  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  this  inspi- 
ration that  gave  us  the  Psalms. 

The  arrangement  of  the  Psalms  is  very  remark- 
able. Prof.  Delitzsch  says  :  "  The  Psalter  is  a  Pen- 
tateuch, the  echo  of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  from 
the  heart  of  Israel.  It  is  the  five  Books  of  the 
Church  to  Jehovah  as  the  law  is  the  Five  Books  of 
Jehovah  to  the  Church."  This  is  a  wonderful  cor- 
respondence, and  was  noticed  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church.  Hyppolytus  was  clear  that  "  This  five-fold 
division  of  the  Psalms  was  made  with  reference  to 
the  Pentateuch."  The  division  is  as  follows : 

Book  I.  This  contains  41  Psalms,  /.  e.,  1-41.  Of 
these,  37  are  expressly  ascribed  to  David  as  their 
author.  Psalms  10  and  33  which  are  anonymous 
are  nevertheless  Davidic,  as  they  are  simply  the  con- 
tinuation of  Psalms  9  and  32.  The  two  introduc- 
tory Psalms,  i  and  2,  though  anonymous,  are  clearly 
Davidic,  for  Peter  quotes  the  Second  Psalm  as  a 
Psalm  of  David,  Acts  4  :  25-27,  and,  by  all  interpre- 
ters, Psalms  I  and  2  are  regarded  as  but  parts  of  but 
one  Psalm.  Thus  the  whole  41  are  genuine  Psalms 
of  David.  The  prevailing  name  of  God  is  "Je- 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  119 

hovah."  It  is  a  harmless  thing  to  call  them  "  Jeho- 
vistic  Psalms,"  but  the  conclusion  drawn  by  the 
"  Higher  Critics "  that  the  author  of  Psalms  that 
have  the  name  of  Elohim  as  the  prevailing  name 
was  not  David,  is  but  a  bold  assumption  and  not  to 
be  tolerated  one  moment. 

Book  II.  This  contains  30  Psalms,  *'.  e.,  from  42  to 
72,  inclusive.  It  begins  with  7  Psalms  for  the  Sons 
of  Korah.  Psalm  43  is  part  of  Psalm  42.  Both  are 
anonymous.  There  is  no  solid  argument  against  their 
Davidic  authorship.  Psalm  50  is  a  Psalm  of  Asaph. 
Then  come  2 1  Psalms  of  David,  i.  <?.,  from  5 1  to  72. 
Psalms  66,  67  and  71  are  anonymous,  but  are  never- 
theless Davidic.  Psalm  72,  concerning,  or  with  ref- 
erence to  Solomon,  is  undoubtedly  a  Psalm  of 
David.  So  that,  save  the  Asaph  Psalm,  this  whole 
group  belongs  to  David.  The  prevailing  name  of 
God,  is  Elohim.  Hence  they  are  called  "  Elohistic 
Psalms." 

Book  III.  This  contains  16  psalms,  i.e.,  from  73 
to  89,  inclusive.  It  begins  with  eleven  Psalms  of 
Asaph,  i.  e.,  from  73  to  84.  Then  come  four  Psalms 
for  the  Sons  of  Korah,  all  Davidic,  i.  e.,  from  85  to  88. 
Psalm  89  belongs  to  Ethan.  Sometimes  the  name 
"  Jehovah,"  and  sometimes  the  name  Elohim,  is 
used. 

Book  IV.  This,  also,  contains  16  Psalms,  i.  e., 
from  90  to  106,  inclusive.  It  begins  with  the  oldest 
Psalm,  the  only  Psalm  anterior  to  David  in  the 
whole  collection.  Its  author  was  "  Moses,  the  man 
of  God."  Its  historical  occasion  was  the  end  of  the 


120  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

wilderness-wandering  and  the  sentence  of  death 
recorded  in  Numbers  14 :  28,  etc.  The  rest  of  this 
group  are  anonymous,  except  Psalm  101  and  103, 
which  are  expressly  ascribed  to  David.  "  Jehovah  " 
is  the  only  name  used  here. 

Book  V.  This  contains  43  Psalms,  /.  e.,  from  107 
to  150  inclusive.  Of  these,  15  are  expressly  assigned 
to  David,  viz.:  108,  109,  no;  122,  124,  131,  133;  138- 
145.  Psalm  127  is  assigned  to  Solomon.  Psalms 
111-113,  II5~II7>  and  146-150,  eleven  in  all,  are 
Hallelujah  Psalms,  i.  e.,  beginning  or  ending  with 
"  Praise  ye  the  Lord  !  "  The  great  Mercy  Psalm  is 
Psalm  1 36,  in  which  the  Lord's  mercy  is  celebrated 
twenty-six  times.  The  anonymous  Psalms  are  107, 
111-114;  118-121,  123,  125-130,  132,134,136,137, 
146-150;  twenty-five  in  all.  Several  of  these  are 
clearly  Davidic  because  continuing  the  preceding 
one  which  is  ascribed  to  David.  Others  are  de- 
monstrably  so,  from  their  style  and  contents,  even 
without  a  title.  The  Jews  call  the  anonymous 
Psalms  "  Orphan  Psalms."  The  prevailing  name  in 
this  group  is  "  Jehovah."  In  this  group  there  are 
fifteen  "  Pilgrim  Psalms,"  or  "  Songs  of  Degrees," 
viz.:  from  120  to  134. 

Such  are  the  divisions  of  the  five-fold  Psalter.  Of 
these,  75  Psalms  are  expressly  assigned  to  David 
and  a  large  majority  of  the  rest  are  clearly  his,  even 
without  a  title ;  one  to  Moses,  one  to  Solomon,  12 
to  Asaph,  eleven  for  the  "  Sons  of  Korah,"  one  to 
Heman,  one  to  Ethan,  15  Pilgrim  Songs,  eleven 
Hallelujah  Psalms,  or  12  if  we  include  the  great 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS. 


"Mercy  Psalm;"  51  are  anonymous;  34  have  no 
title  or  superscription  —  the  "  Orphan  Psalms." 
These  "  Orphan  Psalms  "  the  Talmud,  Hilary,  Jerome 
and  others,  assign  to  the  author  named  immediately 
preceding.  The  fancy  of  the  Septuagint  Version 
that  they  are  to  be  distributed,  to  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  has  no  historical  foundation. 
Far  more  likely  they  are  parts  of  systems  of  Psalms 
whose  authors  names  are  given. 

When  it  is  said  that  David  wrote  the  Psalms,  and 
the  New  Testament  cites  the  Psalms  as  the  "  Words 
of  David,"  this  does  not  mean  that  David  wrote  all 
the  Psalms,  for  some  are  expressly  assigned  to  other 
authors — to  Moses,  Solomon,  Asaph,  Heman  and 
Ethan.  Some  have  superscriptions  or  titles,  others 
are  anonymous.  The  designation  of  the  whole  col- 
lection took  its  name  from  David,  the  chief  author, 
just  as  the  name  Ephraim  was  given  to  the  ten 
tribes  beczftise  Ephraim  was  the  greatest  of  them 
all.  The  most  of  the  anonymous  Psalms  are  indis- 
putably the  Psalms  of  David,  as  even  an  ordinary 
English  reader  might  tell,  from  their  tone,  spirit, 
style  and  historical  occasions.  Every  Psalm  quoted 
by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  as  by  David,  was  real- 
ly such.  Some,  even  without  a  title  to  them,  are 
ascribed  to  David  in  the  New  Testament.  The  sec- 
ond Psalm  is  an  instance  of  this,  and  this  deter- 
mines the  authorship  of  the  first  Psalm,  for  the 
original  unity  of  both,  as  one  Psalm,  is  admitted. 
Whatever  disputes  the  Critics  may  raise  as  to  the 
value  of  the  superscriptions,  the  words  of  Christ 


122  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

and  His  Apostles  are  authority  that  should  be  un- 
hesitatingly recognized  by  all  professing  Christians. 
The  rejection  of  the  authorship  of  certain  Davidic 
Psalms  by  certain  critics,  the  denial  of  the  au- 
thenticity of  others  on  purely  speculative  grounds, 
or  on  a  false  view  of  Jewish  history ;  the  asser- 
tion that  the  titles  and  doxologies  are  inventions 
of  compilers  and  redactors;  the  attempt  to  in- 
validate Davidic  authorship  by  setting  up  a  non- 
correspondence  of  the  Psalms  with  the  person- 
ality and  times  of  David,  and  the  relegation  of 
Psalms  to  a  date  low  down  as  the  Maccabees, 
ought  to  be  resisted  in  the  interest  of  true  criticism 
as  directly  in  the  face  of  all  tradition  and  of  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  Himself. 

It  is  an  unscholarly  criticism,  as  even  a  half-scholar 
might  easily  see  to  conclude  that,  because  certain 
Psalms  are  anonymous  therefore  they  were  not  writ- 
ten by  King  David.  There  is  an  order  'and  an  au- 
thorship, often  not  hard  to  be  recognized,  even 
where  everything  at  first  sight  seems  to  be  arbitrary 
and  fortuitous.  As  Prof.  Binney  of  Aberdeen  says : 
"  In  not  a  few  of  the  anonymous  Psalms  the  hand  of 
David  may  be  distinctly  traced."  Dr.  J.  A.  Alex- 
ander says  :  "  The  authorship  is  not  always  as  obscure 
as  at  first  sight  it  might  seem.  There  are  pairs  of 
Psalms  where  the  author's  name  is  found  only  with 
the  first.  We  may  trace  not  only  pairs  but  trilogies. 
And  even  more  extensive  systems  of  Psalms,  each  in- 
dependent of  the  rest,  particularly  when  the  nucleus 
or  the  basis  of  the  series  is  an  ancient  Psalm — for  in- 


FS.    THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  123 

stance,  one  of  David's  to  which  others  are  added." 
Hengstenberg  tells  us  that  "  David  was  the  author 
of  the  alphabetic  Psalms,  and  to  him  belongs  the 
formation  of  the  pairs  of  Psalms,  and  the  larger 
Psalm-cycles"  Prof.  Sayce  tells  us  that  the  men  of 
Hezekiah's  time  collected  all  the  Psalms  of  David 
and  those  of  other  Psalmists  "  from  the  Temple-Li- 
brary." See  2  Chron.  29  :  30 ;  and  Neh.  12:46.  Is 
it  at  all  likely  that  the  best  educated  men  of  Israel, 
editing  the  Psalms  of  David  and  of  Asaph,  under 
the  very  eyes  of  Isaiah,  the  greatest  of  all  the 
prophets — a  preacher  in  the  Temple — did  not  know 
what  the  Psalms  of  David  were  ?  The  words  of  Dr. 
J.  A.  Alexander,  believed  by  many  competent 
judges  to  be  the  ablest  scholar  of  this  generation, 
ought  to  have  weight  with  seekers  after  truth.  He 
says :  "All  the  attempts  so  strenuously  made  by  mod- 
ern Critics  to  discredit  the  inscriptions  to  the  Psalms 
as  spurious  additions  of  a  later  date,  containing 
groundless  conjectures  often  at  variance  with  the 
terms  and  substance  of  the  Psalm  itself,  are  defeated 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  it,  not  as  addenda,  but 
as  integral  parts  of  the  composition."  And,  again  : 
"The  Psalms  were  not  thrown  together  at  random, 
but  adjusted  by  a  careful  hand.  The  modern  critics 
have  tasked  their  ingenuity  to  prove  that  the  Psalms 
are  separate  and  detached  collections,  contempo- 
raneous or  successive,  by  unknown  authors  and  com- 
bined afterwards  to  form  the  present  Psalter.  But 
they  have  never  been  able  to  account  for  the  re- 


124  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

markable  position  of  the  "  Psalms  of  David  "  in  all 
parts  of  the  book,  a  book  whose  five-fold  arrange- 
ment dates  from  Ezra,  whom  uniform  tradition  and 
analogy  agree  in  representing  as  the  inspired  collect- 
or of  the  Canon — a  competent,  rather,  an  infallible 
authority." 

Let  us  now  examine  the  testimony  of  the  Highest 
Critics.  The  last  question  our  Lord  put  to  the 
Pharisees  was  this :  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? 
Whose  Son  is  He  ? "  They  answered,  "  David's 
Son."  Very  well,  said  Jesus,  "  If  David  in  Spirit, 
i.  e.,  if  King  David  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
calls  Him  '  Lord,'  how  is  He  David's  Son  ? " 
The  one  hundred  and  tenth  Psalm  says:  "Jehovah 
said  unto  Adonai,  sit  on  my  right  hand  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool."  If  Messiah  is  David's 
Son,  how  is  He  David's  Lord  ?  There  was  only  one 
answer  to  this,  and  the  Pharisees,  who  certainly 
understood  Hebrew,  saw  it  and  refused  to  make  it. 
It  was  that  Messiah  should  be  both  God  and  man  in 
one  person.  They  felt  the  force  of  it.  They  were 
silenced,  for  the  whole  nation  admitted  that  the 
Psalm  was  Messianic,  and  that  David  was  its  author, 
and  spoke  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Lord  vindi- 
cated His  claim  to  Deity  and  Messiahship  by  appeal 
to  the  inspired  words  of  the  King  of  Israel.  Let  it 
be  noticed  that  Christ  refers  to  this  in  Matt.  22:41- 
46;  Mark  12:35-37,  and  Luke  20:41-44.  Peter 
referred  to  it  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  See  Acts 
2:34-36.  Paul  also  mentions  it  in  Heb.  1 :  3,  4,  13. 
All  say  the  Psalm  is  a  prophecy  concerning  Jesus 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  125 

Christ,  and  given  by  David  through  whom  the  Holy 
Spirit  spoke.  We  learn  from  these  passages  (i)  that 
"  David  Himself "  spoke  the  Psalm  ;  (2)  that  the 
"  Holy  Spirit  "  .by  the  "  Mouth  of  David  "  said  it, 
"  David  in  the  Spirit,"  "  David  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  (3) 
that  the  Psalm  was  what  "  God  "  said  ;  (4)  and  that 
David,  Jesus  Christ,  Peter,  Paul  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  a  unit  in  this  testimony. 

Now,  what  says  the  "  Higher  Criticism  ?  "  It  flatly 
denies  all  this,  and  teaches  that  David  never  wrote 
the  Psalm  ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it ;  that  the  Jewish  nation  was  deluded  in 
thinking  it  to  be  Messianic ;  that  Jesus  did  not 
know  any  better,  not  being  a  Higher  Critic ;  that 
both  Peter  and  Paul,  as  well  as  Christ,  were  simply 
the  victims  of  an  old  and  popular  idea;  and  that 
we,  imitating  them,  are  no  better  than  they.  Here 
it  is  in  their  own  words :  "  It  is  usual  to  take  this 
Psalm  as  Messianic,  and  interpret  it  of  Messiah's 
warfare  and  exaltation.  The  New  Testament  is 
cited  as  proof  of  this.  Our  Lord  Himself  says  that 
David  wrote  it  with  regard  to  a  greater  than  himself ; 
that  is,  the  expected  Messiah.  Again,  it  is  alleged 
that  Peter  in  the  Acts,  takes  the  Messianic  import 
for  granted.  But  Christ  did  not  meddle  with  critical 
questions  connected  with  the  Old  Testament,  as  His 
mission  was  of  another  character.  He  simply  acqui- 
esced in  the  current  views  of  such  questions,  as  long 
as  they  did  not  affect  the  nature  of  that  mission 
*  *  *  In  regard  to  the  Apostles,  we  cannot  in 
all  cases,  adopt  their  interpretations  of  the  Old  Tes- 


126  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

tament,  since  they  were  not  infallible.  The  Psalm 
probably  refers  to  the  Maccabean  times,  and  to  one 
of  the  Hasmonean  Princes,  such  as  Jonathan." 
(HEBRAICA,  April,  1889,  p.  102.) 

What  are  we  here  told  ?  That  Jesus  Christ  was 
an  ignorant  man  in  matters  of  authorship  and  exe- 
gesis. That  two  days  before  His  death  He  applied 
to  Himself,  in  proof  of  His  Deity  and  Messiahship, 
and  in  view  of  His  resurrection  and  ascension  to 
God's  right  hand,  a  military  poem  that  referred  to 
a  brother  of  Judas  Maccabeus,  that  was  not  writ- 
ten by  David  at  all,  but  by  some  one  unknown  to 
the  world,  nearly  nine  hundred  years  after  King 
David's  death  ;  and,  that  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  the  Apostles  is  false,  and,  therefore,  not 
to  be  believed.  In  my  humble  judgment  this  is  de- 
structive to  the  last  degree,  and  comes  perilously 
near  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  Acts  1:15,  1 6  we  are  informed  that  Peter  said 
that  "  David  spake  "  the  things  recorded  in  Psalm 
41  :  9.  On  the  Day  of  Pentecost  he  said:  "For 
David  saith  concerning  Him,  '  I  beheld  the  Lord 
always  before  my  face  ;  for  He  is  on  my  right  hand 
that  I  should  not  be  moved ;  therefore  my  heart 
was  glad  and  my  tongue  rejoiced  ;  moreover  my 
flesh  also  shall  dwell  in  hope,  because  Thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  in  Hades ;  neither  wilt  Thou  suffer 
Thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  *  *  *  Being 
therefore  a  prophet  *  *  *  he  foreseeing  this 
spake,'"  etc.,  etc.  Acts  2  :  25-32.  Notice  the  ex- 
plicit statements  of  Peter  :  "  David  saith ;"  "  there- 


FS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  127 

fprebeinga  prophet ;"  <:  he  (David)  foreseeing  this 
spake."  According  to  this  testimony  David  wrote 
the  Sixteenth  Psalm.  If  he  did  not,  Peter  lied.  1 
believe  he  told  the  truth,  for  he  had  a  mouth  and 
wisdom,  which  all  his  adversaries  were  not  lible  to 
withstand  or  to  gainsay. 

When  Peter  and  John  returned  to  their  own  com. 
pany  after  imprisonment  and  dire  threatening,  the 
disciples  with  one  accord  said  :  "  Who  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  the  mouth  of  our  father  David  thy  ser- 
vant, didst  say,"  and  then  they  quote  Psalm  2:1,2 
(see  Acts  4:  25,  26).  If  David  did  not  write  the 
first  and  second  verses  of  the  second  Psalm,  "  By 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  the  Apostles  bore  false  testimony. 
I  believe  they  knew  what  they  were  talking  about, 
and  that  they  told  the  truth. 

Paul,  writing  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  says  :  "Even  as 
David  also  pronounceth  blessing  upon  the  man, 
unto  whom  God  reckoneth  righteousness  apart  from 
works,  saying :  '  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities 
are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed 
is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin.'  " 
Rom.  4 : 6-8.  The  quotation  is  from  Psalm  32  :  1,2; 
and  Paul  says  that  David  is  the  author  of  what  is 
there  said.  I  believe  Paul  told  the  truth. 

In  Rom.  11:9,  10,  Paul  says  explicitly  that  David 
said  the  things  uttered  in  Psalm  69 :  22,  23. 

In  Heb.  4 :  7,  we  are  informed  that  David  is  the 
author  of  Psalm  95  :  7,  8. 

We  here  have  the  unequivocal  testimony  of  the 
Highest  Critics  that  King  David  was  the  author  of 


128  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

parts — and  if  of  parts,  certainly  of  the  whole — of  the 
second,  sixteenth,  thirty-second,  forty-first,  ninety- 
fifth  and  one  hundred  and  tenth  Psalms.  To  deny 
this  is  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  the  Son  of  God, 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  the  Apostles. 

Many  of  these  critics  not  only  deny  the  Davidic 
authorship  of  the  Psalms,  but  that  they  contain  any 
Messianic  prophecy  whatever.  Here  are  a  few 
specimens :  "  Psalm  88.  This  Psalm  is  not  Messi- 
anic. A  suffering  Messiah  is  unknown  to  the  Old 
Testament."  "  Psalm  109.  This  Psalm  is  not  Messi- 
anic ;  neither  can  the  use  of  it  by  Peter,  as  recorded 
in  the  Acts,  make  it  apply  to  Jesus  !  And  it  does 
not  suit  the  character  of  David,  as  if  he  were  the 
author  speaking  prophetically."  "  Psalm  118.  This 
Psalm  was  applied  to  Messiah  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
as  the  citation  of  the  twenty-second  verse,  in  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts  show.  But  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  suppose,  on  that  account,  that  such  was  the 
original  sense."  Speaking  of  the  Messianic  prophe- 
cies meeting  their  fulfillment  in  Christ :  "  The  proph- 
ets never  thought  of  making  such  a  combination, 
nor  could  such  a  combination  be  harmoniously 
made."  The  second  Psalm  "  has  reference  to  the 
reigning  king.  Whether  this  king  was  David  or 
Solomon  is  immaterial  for  our  present  purpose." 
The  twenty-second  Psalm  "  evidently  refers  to 
David.  Throughout  this  whole  Psalm  he  describes 
his  own  personal  feelings  and  experiences." 

"  The  forty-fifth  Psalm,  as  its  title  indicates,  is  a 
'  song  of  loves' — that  is,  a  song  in  celebration  of 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  129 

love.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  bridal  hymn,  sung  at 
the  marriage  of  a  king."  The  one  hundred  and 
tenth  Psalm  "  was  evidently  written  concerning 
David  by  some  poet  of  his  time,  who  would  nat- 
urally speak  of  him  as  his  lord."  When  Christ 
quoted  Ps.  41  :  9  in  Jno.  13  :  18,  "  He  does  not  mean 
to  imply  that  the  passage  in  the  Psalm  had  an  orig- 
inal reference  to  Judas."  Although  Paul  applied  the 
sixty-ninth  Psalm  to  Christ,  "  from  beginning  to  end 
of  the  Psalm  there  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to 
Christ  or  to  any  person  other  than  the  Psalmist." 
When  Peter  quoted  the  sixteenth  Psalm  in  Acts 
2  :  2J,  "  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  to  indicate 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was  conceived 
in  David's  day.  This  fact  Peter  must  have  known. 
Hence  he  could  not  have  imagined  that  the  passage 
taught  the  resurrection  of  the  Messiah." 

And  so  on  ad  infinitum,  we  might  almost  say,  un- 
til the  head  is  weary  of  the  contemplation,  and 
"  the  whole  heart  faint,"  if  one  entertains  an  ex- 
pectation of  salvation  and  heaven  through  the  Word 
of  the  Living  God. 

The  Messianic  Psalms  predict,  typically  and  pro- 
phetically the  Advent,  Life,  Character,  Sufferings 
and  Glory  of  Jesus  Christ.  Also  His  Kingdom  and 
His  Salvation  for  Israel  and  the  Nations.  They  are 
Psalms  pervaded  with  the  hope  of  better  times  for 
all  mankind.  This  hope  entered  into  the  very  warp 
and  woof  of  the  Hebrew  life,  and  King  David  gave 
it  the  fullest  expression.  The  following  are  some  of 
these  Psalms  :  2,  8,  16,  22,  24,  40,  45,  68,  72,  95, 


130  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

100,109,  no,  116,  1 1 8.  The  Highest  Critics  "bear 
the  following  testimony  to  the  Messianic  import  of 
these  and  other  Psalms  :  In  Matt.  13  :  35,  it  is  de- 
clared that  the  prophecy  in  Psalms  78  :  2,  was  ful- 
filled in  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  Psalm  118:  26  is 
certainly  a  prophecy  of  Jesus.  See  Matt.  21:9, 
and  John  12:  13.  In  Matt.  21  :  16,  Jesus  interprets 
Psalm  8  :  2  as  true  of  His  ministry.  In  Matt.  22  : 
44  ;  Mark  12  :  36;  and,  Luke  20  :  42,  43,  Jesus,  as  we 
have  seen,  declares  that  Psalm  no:  I,  refers  to  Him- 
self. The  prophecy  in  Psalm  22  :  18,  was  fulfilled 
in  the  casting  of  "  lots  "  for  the  Saviour's  garments. 
See  Matt.  27:  35  and  John  19:  24.  His  last  words 
as  recorded  in  Matt.  27 :  46  and  parallels,  are 
recorded  in  Psalm  22  :  I.  Psalm  31  :  5,  is  applied  by 
Jesus  to  Himself.  See  Luke  23  :  46.  "  Hath  not 
the  Scripture  said  that  the  Christ  cometh  of  the 
seed  of  David."  (John  7  :  42.)  Psalms  89:  3,  4, 
and  132:  II,  are  the  Scriptures  referred  to.  Jesus 
said,  "  But  that  the  Scripture  may  be  fulfilled,  he 
that  eateth  my  bread  lifteth  up  his  heel  against  me." 
The  Scripture  Jesus  here  quotes  as  true  of  His  be- 
trayer is  Psalm  41 :  9.  Jesus  said  :  "  But  this  cometh 
to  pass,  that  the  word  may  be  fulfilled  that  is  written 
in  their  law.  They  hated  me  without  a  cause." 
He  quoted  Psalms  35  :  19;  69:  4;  and,  109:  3,  and 
applied  them  to  Himself.  Jesus,  while  on  the 
cross,  "  That  the  Scripture  might  be  accomplished, 
saith,  '  I  thirst'"  (John  19:  28.)  The  Scripture  to 
which  He  referred  is  Psalm  69:  21.  This  is  most 
striking  !  He  was  in  the  unutterable  agony  of  His 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  131 

dying  hour,  and  yet  He  remembers  this  apparently 
insignificant  prophecy  of  Himself,  and  arrests  the 
ebbings  of  His  life,  in  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled. 
After  His  resurrection,  in  His  conversation  with  the 
two  whom  he  met  on  the  "  way  to  Emmaus,"  "  Be- 
ginning from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets,  He 
interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things 
concerning  Himself."  Luke  24 :  27.  The  Psalms 
are  a  portion  of  "All  the  Scriptures  ;  "  hence  they 
must  have  a  Messianic  import.  But  He  made  this 
very  certain,  as  a  little  later  on  He  said  to  the  dis- 
ciples :  "  These  are  my  words  which  I  spake  unto 
you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  how  that  all  things 
must  needs  be  fulfilled,  which  are  written  in  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  con- 
cerning me."  Luke  24:44.  And  yet  many  of 
these  critics  deny  that  the  Psalms  contain  any  Mes- 
sianic prophecy.  Such  denial  is  a  flat  contradiction 
of  the  above  explicit  statement  of  the  Son  of  God. 

In  Acts  2 :  25-32  113:35  and  I  Cor.  xv :  3,  4  we 
have  incontestable  proof  that  Psalm  16:  8-n  is  pro- 
phetical of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour. 

Peter  declared  to  the  "  Rulers  and  elders,  and 
scribes,"  that  Jesus  Christ  "  Is  the  stone"  of  which 
the  Psalmist  prophetically  speaks  in  Psalm  1:8:  22, 
23.  See  Acts  4 :  1 1  and  I  Peter  2 :  7.  Paul  in 
speaking  of  Jesus,  in  the  synagogue  at  Antioch, 
said  :  "And  we  bring  you  good  tidings  of  the  prom- 
ise made  unto  the  fathers,  how  that  God  hath  ful- 
filled the  same  unto  our  children,  in  that  he  raised 


132  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

up  Jesus ;  as  also  it  is  written  in  the  second  Psalm. 
Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  Thee." 
Acts  13:  32,  33.  The  same  testimony  is  borne  in 
Heb.  1:5;  and  v :  5.  In  Acts  17 :  31  it  is  declared 
that  God  "  Hath  appointed  a  day,  in  which  He  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  the  man  whom 
He  hath  ordained."  All  this  is  set  forth  in  Psalm 
96  :  13.  We  find  in  Rom.  xv  :  3  these  words  :  "  For 
Christ  also  pleased  not  Himself ;  but  as  it  is  written, 
The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  Thee  fell 
upon  Me."  Where  is  this  written  ?  In  Psalm  69  : 
9.  The  declaration  made  in  I  Cor.  xv:  25-27,  is  but 
the  echo  of  Psalms  2  :  6-10  ;  8  :  6 ;  45  :  3,6,  and  1 10  : 
I.  "Wherefore  he  saith "  (of  Christ);  and  Psalm 
68  :  1 8  is  then  quoted  (see  Eph.  4:  8).  Speaking  of 
Jesus  the  Christ,  in  Hebrews  I  :  6-9,  the  inspired 
penman  quotes  Psalms  97 :  7  and  45  :  6,  7,  as  ful- 
filled in  connection  with  the  advent  of  our  Lord.  In 
Heb.  2 :  12,  Psalm  22  :  22,  is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ. 
In  Heb.  v:  6,  zoand  7:  17,  2 1,  it  is  declared  that  Psalm 
1 10:  4  is  true  of  Jesus  Christ.  Psalm  40:  6-8,  was 
fulfilled  in  Jesus  as  we  learn  in  Heb.  x :  5-7.  Rev. 
2:  27  and  19:  15  identifies  Jesus  with  the  prophecy 
of  Psalm  2 :  9.  Rev.  xv :  4  makes  it  certain  that 
Christ  was  prophetically  referred  to  in  Psalm  86 :  9. 
The  prophecy  in  Psalm  45  :  3,  4,  without  doubt  re- 
fers to  the  Messiah  in  Kingly  glory.  See  Rev.  19: 
II. 

And  so  we  see  that  the  Highest  Critics  again  and 
again,  in  most  explicit  terms  and  unmistakable  lan- 
guage utterly  refute  the  views  and  opinions  of  the 


KS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  133 

Higher  Critics,  that  none  of  the  Psalms  are  Mes- 
sianic in  their  prophetical  outlook.  I  am  sure  that 
the  millions  who  have  felt  the  thrill  of  these  divine 
harmonies,  and  believe  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  Apostles  were  competent  to  express 
an  opinion  upon  the  matters  under  discussion  ;  that 
they  did  not  lie,  or  were  not  duped,  but  did  tell  the 
truth,  will  not  hesitate  for  one  moment  in  deciding 
whom  to  believe.  "  Let  God  be  true  and  every 
man  a  liar." 

In  face  of  this  unbelieving  criticism,  and  in  face  of 
swerving  loyalty  of  scholars  from  whom  better  things 
were  to  be  expected,  we  hold  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Highest  Critics.  Were  it  necessary  it  could  be 
supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  Church 
who  referred  to  the  Messiah  in  the  very  Psalms  to 
which  I  have  called  attention.  We  could  quote 
from  standard  translations  of  Talmud  and  Targum 
alike,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  The  inner  witness  of 
the  Sacred  Books  themselves,  the  fulfillment  of  the 
Psalms  in  the  person  of  Christ, ,  and  the  hope  of 
Messianic  glory  common  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
proved  that  David  spoke  by  the  Spirit  (2  Sam.  23  :  2), 
was  a  "  Seer  "  as  well  as  a  "  Prophet,"  and  foretold 
"  The  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should 
follow"  (i  Peter  1 :  10,  11). 

The  Psalmody  of  Israel  broke  out  where  David 
was  enthroned.  It  broke  out  again  in  Isaiah's  time, 
when  Judah  was  delivered  from  the  Assyrian  yoke, 
and  again  when  Judah  returned  from  Babylonian 
exile.  It  is  here  belong  the  "  Songs  of  Degrees  " — 


134  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

the  music  of  the  Pilgrims  marching  to  Zion.  Psalms 
were  written  during  the  various  invasions  of  Judah 
by  Heathen  nations ;  also  when  the  Chaldeans  de- 
stroyed the  city  and  burned  the  Temple  ;  also  during 
the  captivity,  and  during  the  restoration.  From 
Moses  to  Ezra  the  stream  of  song  was  perpetuated 
in  the  solemn  liturgy  of  the  chosen  race,  bursting 
upward  in  floods  of  ebullient  emotion  and  Messianic 
praise.  It  sounded  not  only  the  glories  of  the  Mes- 
sianic King  to  come,  but  breathed  the  sorrows  that 
precede  his  enthronement.  It  poured  forth  the 
penitential  confession  of  sin,  and  the  jubilant  ex- 
pressions of  gratitude  for  divine  forgiveness.  There 
is  not  a  chord  of  religious  experience,  or  a  faith  or 
hope  it  did  not  touch.  And  King  David,  the  sweet 
singer  of  Israel,  though  others  also  sang  sweet  songs, 
was  the  master  hand  in  all.  The  false  criticism  that 
would  assign  some  of  the  noblest  of  these  produc- 
tions to  Maccabean  times,  in  honor  of  the  exploits 
of  Maccabean  princes,  or  their  transient  independ- 
ence, or  as  utterances  of  distress  in  times  of  Syrian 
persecution,  is  repelled  by  the  fact  that  the  Psalter, 
in  its  five-fold  arrangement,  was  known  as  early  as 
the  times  of  the  Chronicles,  i.  e.,  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury before  Christ. 

Christ  in  His  sufferings  and  Christ  in  His  glory  is 
the  substance  and  sense  of  all  Israel's  Prophecy,  of 
all  Israel's  Psalmody,  of  all  Israel's  History.  He 
is  the  end  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  just  as 
He  is  the  end  of  the  Law,  and  of  History.  May 
the  Lord  smite  the  criticism  that  teaches  otherwise ! 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  135 

Christ,  and  Christ  alone,  is  the  key  that  unlocks  the 
entire  Old  Testament.  When  Philip  showed  this  to 
the  Assyrian  State  Minister,  the  Ethiopian  rode  in 
his  chariot  "  rejoicing."  Had  Philip  been  a  Higher 
Critic  "  Queen  Candace's  prime-minister  had  worn  a 
blacker  face !  Had  Peter  been  a  Higher  Critic 
the  scenes  at  Pentecost  had  never  occurred.  Had 
Jesus  been  a  Higher  Critic — in  the  sense  of  modern 
Higher  Critics  — the  gloom  had  never  been  lifted 
from  the  hearts  of  the  wanderers  to  Emmaus  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  first  Christian  Sabbath !  "  The  key 
of  David,"  said  Hilary,  "  is  the  Person  of  Jesus." 


136  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ISAIAH. 

The  Higher  Critics  subject  the  Bible  to  what  they 
call  "  Literary  "  and  "  Historical  tests."  This  is  all 
right,  providing  the  tests  are  all  right.  Sometimes 
they  are  ;  oftentimes  they  are  not,  since  they  are 
based  upon  human  opinion,  which,  too  often,  is 
biased,  and  never  infallible.  Therefore,  the  work- 
ing rules  of  these  gentlemen  are  usually  but  postu- 
lates. The  mischief  done  by  the  rationalistically  dis- 
posed comes  of  their  eliminating  the  supernatural  from 
their  rules.  Doing  this,  they  are  compelled  to  deny 
that  a  prophet  was  in  any  sense  a  seer  and  foretel- 
ler, except  within  the  limits  of  his  own  time.  Just 
here  these  Critics  work  the  theory  they  call  "  Time 
Historical,"  or  "  Near  Horizon."  The  theory  is 
thus  stated  by  two  of  them : 

"  The  prophets  were  bounded  like  other  men  by 
the  horizon  of  their  own  views,  and  occupied  them- 
selves only  with  that  future  whose  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments  were  likely  to  reach  their  contemporaries." 

"  Isaiah  prophesied  and  predicted  all  he  did  from 
loyalty  to  two  simple  truths,  which  he  tells  us  he 
received  from  God  Himself — that  sin  must  be  pun- 
ished, and  that  the  people  of  God  must  be  saved. 
This  simple  faith,  acting  with  a  wonderful  knowledge 
of  human  nature  and  ceaseless  vigilance  of  affairs, 
constituted  inspiration  for  Isaiah.  For  the  exact 
conditions  and  forms,  both  of  the  punishment  and  its 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  137 

relief,  the  prophets  depended  upon  their  own  knowl- 
edge of  the  world." 

Here  is  a  sample :  "In  the  promise  that  a  virgin 
shall  bring  forth  a  child,  Isa.  vii :  13-17,  '  the  natural 
and  original  reference  is  to  the  birth  of  a  child, 
which  was  shortly  to  take  place.  Hence  there  is  no 
direct,  much  less  exclusive,  reference  here  to  the 
Messiah." 

Of  course  this  theory  brings  them  into  direct  con- 
flict with  the  Highest  Critics.  But  this  is  not  an  in- 
superable difficulty,  as  we  have  already  seen,  for  they 
audaciously  and  arbitrarily  set  their  testimony  aside 
as  incompetent.  The  Messianic  prophecies  in  this 
and  other  books  are  easily  disposed  of  by  insisting 
that  there  are  none.  The  chief  point  of  difficulty 
encountered  by  them  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  is  the 
prophecy  concerning  Cyrus  and  his  kingdom.  They 
are  compelled,  by  indisputable  historical  facts,  to 
either  confess  that  Isaiah  was  a  remote  foreseer,  or 
deny  that  he  was  the  author  of  that  part  of  the 
Book.  This  latter  is  what  they  have  done.  They 
allow  that  Isaiah  wrote  chapters  one  and  thirty-nine, 
inclusive ;  but,  as  he  could  not  possibly  have  seen 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  into  the  future,  some 
writer,  to  them  unknown,  contemporaneous  with  the 
times  of  Cyrus,  wrote  chapters  forty  and  sixty-six, 
inclusive.  His  writings  indicate  that  he  was  quite 
the  peer  of  Isaiah,  David  and  Moses,  and  yet  the 
Jewish  nation  did  not  know  him.  He  is  referred  to 
one  hundred  times  in  the  New  Testament,  but  no 
Apostle  or  Evangelist  can  tell  who  he  is.  The  fact 


138  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

is,  he  is  a  creature  of  the  fancy  of  these  gentlemen,  cre- 
ated to  support  their  postulates,  so  that  they  will 
work  smoothly.  That  is  to  say,  there  is  no  such 
personage  ;  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  of  it ;  he 
is  purely  and  wholly  fictitious,  an  impostor  and 
idealistic  fraud.  In  order  to  be  consistent  they 
have  thrown  out  the  four  historical  chapters,  i.  e., 
thirty-six  and  thirty-nine  inclusive,  on  the  assumed 
grounds  that  they,  with  the  exception  of  the  Song 
of  Hezekiah,  chap.  38:9-20,  and  narrating  certain 
important  events  in  which  Isaiah  was  concerned, 
do  not  differ  verbally,  from  2  Kings,  18:13;  18:17- 
20  and  19.  And,  as  there  are  prophecies  in  chapters 
one  and  thirty-five,  inclusive,  that  reached  beyond 
the  lifetime  of  Isaiah,  they  have  cut  out  the  chap- 
ters containing  them;  so  that  now,  they  allow 
he  wrote  twenty-six  chapters.  At  the  speed  they 
are  now  traveling,  Isaiah  will  be  left  as  far  behind 
in  a  little  while,  in  matters  of  authorship,  by  these 
destructionists,  as  David  and  Moses. 

The  Book  of  Isaiah  has  three  natural  divisions, 
and  seven  sub-divisions.  The  first  thirty-five  chap- 
ters constitute,  most  naturally,  the  older  prophecies  ; 
the  last  twenty-seven  the  later.  Lying  between 
these  are  four  historical  chapters,  which  relate  to 
the  Assyrian  invasion  of  the  land,  the  illness  of 
King  Hezekiah  and  his  miraculous  restoration  to 
health.  The  sub-divisions  are  as  follows :  First — 
Chapters  1—12,  recite  the  judgments  visited  upon 
Judah  and  Israel.  Second — Chapters  13-26,  contain 
foreign  prophecies  and  an  account  of  the  punishment 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  139 

visited  upon  seven  Gentile  nations  that  oppressed 
Israel.  Third — Chapters  27-35,  are  a  sublime 
apocalypse  wherein  are  additional  woes  pronounced 
upon  Israel.  Each  of  these  three  groups  ends  with 
a  song  of  praise  in  view  of  the  second  coming 
of  the  Lord.  Fourth — Chapters  36-39,  are  his- 
torical. Fifth — Chapters  40-48 :  we  have  here 
"  God  in  creation,  chap.  40 ;  God  in  providence, 
chap.  41  ;  God  in  redemption,  chap.  42  ;  and  God  in 
the  deliverance  of  His  people  from  Babylonian  op- 
pression, chap.  43."  Cyrus  is  the  middle  point  of 
this  group,  and  is  the  key  with  which  to  unlock  it. 
Sixth — Chapters  49-57,  Jesus  Christ  as  the  servant 
of  Jehovah  is  the  central  figure  in  this  group,  and 
is  represented  as  the  one  Great  Deliverer  from  all 
oppression  and  servitude.  Seventh — Chapters 
58-66,  the  millennial  age,  with  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth  are  the  prominent  things  in  this 
group,  with  restored  Jerusalem  shining  forth  as  the 
central  figure.  Each  of  these  last  three  sub-divi- 
sions ends  with  this  thought :  "  There  is  no  peace, 
saith  my  God  to  the  wicked."  The  last  expressed 
in  different  language. 

The  question  of  the  Prophet  being  able  to  see  be- 
yond his  "  Own  Horizon"  is  the  one  to  which  the 
Highest  Critics  will  now  testify.  The  testimony  of 
the  Book  will  be  limited  to  the  prophecies  concern- 
ing Jesus  Christ,  with  only  a  very  few  glances  at  its 
eschatology.  In  Isa.  7:14,  it  is  said  :  "Therefore 
the  Lord  Himself  shall  give  you  a  sign ;  behold  a 
virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call 
10 


140  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

His  name  Immanuel."  In  Matt,  i  :  20,  21,  we  have 
the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy,  recited,  for  in  the 
twenty-second  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  it  is  said : 
"  Now  all  this  is  come  to  pass,  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the 
Prophet  saying" — and  then  the  twenty-third  verse 
is  a  quotation  of  Isa.  7  :  14.  Luke  2:  u,  and  John 
3 :  16,  tell  us  that  Isa.  9  :  6  was  fulfilled  in  the  birth 
and  gift  of  Jesus  Christ.  Without  doubt  the  mani- 
festation of  Jesus  Christ,  at  the  "  Day  of  the  Lord," 
is  declared  in  Isa.  10  :  17.  See  2  Thess.  2  :  7-9,  and 
Heb.  12  :  29.  In  Isa.  n  :  i,  10,  we  have  an  explicit 
prophecy  that  Jesus  "  shall  come  forth  *  *  *  out 
of  the  stock  of  Jesse."  "  That  the  root  of  Jesse," 
etc.,  etc.  Of  course  this  prophecy  could  not  possi- 
bly refer  to  King  David,  as  he  had  been  dead  more 
than  three  hundred  years  when  it  was  uttered. 
That  it  referred  to  Jesus,  Acts  13:  22,  23,  clearly 
teaches.  Matt.  28:  18,  John  10:  11-16,  and  i  John 
3  :  8  make  it  sure  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
person  meant  in  Isa.  40:  10,  II.  Do  not  Luke  2  :  32 
and  Acts  13:  47  teach  clearly  that  Isa.  49  :6  (last 
clause)  is  a  prophecy  of  Jesus  the  Christ  ? 

The  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  is,  from  first  to 
last,  distinctively  and  particularly  Messianic.  How 
any  honest  man  professing  to  believe  that  the  Bible 
is  God's  Word,  or  even  that  it  contains  God's  Word, 
with  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  before  him, 
can  say  "  It  contains  no  Messianic  import  whatever," 
is  impossible  for  me  to  understand.  But,  let  us 
glance  at  it  verse  by  verse: 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  141 

VERSE  i. — Who    hath    believed    our    report?    and  to  whom 

hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed  ? 
"  Yet  they  believed  not  on  Him  :  that  the  word 
of  Isaiah  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  which 
he  spake,  "Lord  who  hath  believed  our  report? 
and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been 
revealed  ?  "  John  12  : 37,  38. 

VERSE  2. — There  is  no  beauty  that  we  should  desire  Him. 
"  But  they  cried  out  all  together,  saying :  "Away 
with  this  man."  Luke  23  : 18. 

VERSE  3. — A   man   of     sorrows   and    acquainted   with   grief. 
"Then  said  He  unto  them,  My  soul  is  exceed- 
ing sorrowful,  even  unto  death."     Matt.  26  :  38. 
VERSE  4. — Surely  He  hath  borne  our  griefs  (Heb.,  sicknesses) 

and  carried  our  sorrows. 

"That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
Isaiah  the  prophet,  saying,  Himself  took  our 
infirmities  and  bore  our  diseases."  Matt. 
8:  17. 

VERSE  5. — The   chastisement  of    our  peace  was    upon    Him. 
"  Having  made    peace  through  the  blood  of  His 

cross."     Col.  i  :  20. 

VERSE  6. — The  Lord  hath  laid  on  Him  the  iniquity  of  us  all. 
"  Who  His  own  self  bore  our  sins  in  His  body 
upon  the  tree."     i  Peter  2  : 24. 
VERSE  7. — As  a   sheep   that   before    her   shearers  is  dumb; 

yea,  he  opened  not  His  mouth. 

"And  the  eunuch  answered  Philip,  and  said,  I 
pray  thee,  of  whom  speaketh  the  prophet  this? 
of  Himself  or  of  some  other?  And  Philip 
opened  his  mouth,  and  beginning  from  this 
Scripture  preached  unto  him  Jesus."  Acts 

8:32-35. 
VERSE  8. — For    the    transgression    of    my    people    was   He 

stricken. 

"  Him  who  knew  no  sin  He    made  to  be  sin  on 
our  behalf."     2  Cor.  5  :  21, 


142  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

VERSE  9. — And   they  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and 

with  the  rich  in  his  death. 

"And  when  even  was  come,  there  came  a  rich 
man  *  *  *  and  asked  for  the  body  of  Jesus 
*  *  *  and  laid  it  in  his  own  new  tomb." 
Matt.  27 :  57-60. 

VERSE  10. — He  hath  put  Him  to  grief. 

"  Having  become    a  curse  for  us."     Gal.  3 : 13. 

Thou  shalt  make  His  soul  an  offering  for  sin, 

"  He  was  manifested  to  take  away  sins."     i  John 

S'S- 
VERSE  n. — He  shall  see  the  travail  of  His  soul  and  shall  be 

satisfied. 

"  For  Christ  is   the  end  of  the  law  for  righteous- 
ness to  every  one  that  believeth."     Rom.  10 : 4. 
By   His   knowledge   shall    my  righteous   servant 

justify  many. 

"Justified  freely  by  His  grace  through  the  re- 
demption that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  Rom. 

3:24- 

VERSE  12. — Therefore  will  I  divide  Him  a  portion  with  the  great, 
and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong. 
"  That  through  death  He  might  bring  to  naught 
him   that  had   the  power  of  death,  that  is  the 
devil ;  and  might  deliver  all  them  who  through 
fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to 
bondage."     Heb.  2:14,  15. 
And   was  numbered  with  the  transgressors. 
"  There   they   crucified  Him,  and  the  malefactors, 
one  on  the  right  hand  and  the  other  on  the  left." 
Luke  23-33. 

And  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors. 
"  He  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them." 

Heb.  7:25. 

"  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteous."  i  John 
2:1. 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  143 

Romans  1 1  :  26  tells  us  explicitly  that  Isa.  59 :  20 
is  prophetical  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  Luke  4:  16-19  Jesus  Christ  quotes  Isa.  61  :  i 
and  half  of  2  ;  and,  in  the  twenty-first  verse,  He 
says :  "  To-day  hath  this  Scripture  been  fulfilled  in 
your  ears."  John  I  :  32  ;  Acts  10:  38  ;  and  Heb.  I : 
9,  surely  teach  that  the  first  part  of  the  first  verse  of 
sixty-first  chapter  of  Isaiah  is  prophetical  of  Jesus. 
Heb.  7  :  25  tells  us  that  the  "  Mighty  to  save,"  of 
Isa.  63:  I,  is  Jesus  the  Christ.  And  thus  from  be- 
ginning to  end  we  see  the  Messiah  as  Saviour  and 
King — in  humiliation  and  glory.  To  deny  the 
prophetical  characteristics  of  this  Book,  is  to  deny 
the  plainest  teachings  of  the  Word  of  God. 

The  unity  of  the  Book  is  plainly  discernible  in 
the  faultless  symmetry  of  the  whole.  Even  from 
the  "  Literary  Tests,"  of  the  Higher  Critics,  this  is 
easily  and  most  certainly  deducible.  Put  on  your 
literary  spectacles.  It  will  do  you  no  harm  to  wear 
them  if  the  Holy  Spirit  has  enlightened  the  eyes  of 
your  understanding.  Reading  carefully  you  must 
be  struck  by  the  very  great  similarity  of  styles  be- 
tween the  two  portions  of  the  book.  Such  expres- 
sions as :  "  The  mouth  of  the  Lord  has  spoken ; " 
"  Drunken,  but  not  with  wine  ;  "  "  The  lion  shall  eat 
straw  like  the  ox;"  "Wilderness  blossoming;" 
"  The  Holy  one  of  Israel,"  etc.,  are  repeatedly  found. 
Prof.  Delitzsch  calls  attention  to  the  frequent  inter- 
change of  the  name  of  Jacob  with  Israel  in  both 
parts  of  the  book ;  and,  the  sententiousness  of  ex- 
pression and  same  breathless  haste  in  the  move- 


144  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

ment  of  thought,  everywhere  discernible.  Who, 
competent  to  judge,  can  doubt  that  the  35th  chapter 
is  the  prelude  to  the  majestic  harmonies  in  the  4Oth 
and  66th  chapters  inclusive. 

The  entire  Book  of  Isaiah  was  attributed  to  the 
Son  of  Amoz  by  the  Great  Synagogue,  composed  of 
such  illustrious  men  as  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Zachariah 
and  Haggai,  nearly  five  hundred  years  before  Christ. 
If  the  theory  of  a  Deutero-Isaiah  is  true  would  not 
these  great  and  learned  men  have  known  it  ?  They 
knew  nothing  of  any  one  but  the  Proto  and  only 
Isaiah. 

The  Septuagint,  or  Greek  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  was  begun  nearly  three  hundred 
years  before  Christ,  recognizes  but  one  Isaiah  for 
the  entire  Book. 

The  Talmud  and  Targums  ascribe  the  Book, as  such, 
to  Isaiah.  The  Critics  are  significantly  silent  in  re- 
gard to  the  valuable  testimony  of  these  ancient  and 
much  venerated  writings,  on  this  question. 

The  later  Synagogue  knew  nothing  of  a  Deutero- 
Isaiah.  They  used  the  Book  every  Sabbath  day  as 
the  Book  of  Isaiah,  and  thirteen  out  of  its  sixteen 
prophetic  readings  were  taken  from  chapters  40-66. 

Isaiah  is  referred  to  in  Ecclesiasticus,  where  it  is 
written  that  "in  his  time  the  sun  went  backward 
and  he  lengthened  the  king's  life.  He  saw  by  an 
excellent  spirit  what  should  come  at  the  last  and  he 
comforted  them  that  mourned  in  Sion,  he  showed 
what  should  come  to  pass  forever,  and  secret  things 
or  ever  they  came."  A  reference  which  shows  that 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  145 

the  writer  of  that  book  believed  that  the  Isaiah 
of  King  Hezekiah's  reign  was  also  he  who  wrote  the 
later  prophecies  of  the  book. 

The  author  of  the  first  part  of  the  book  wrote  in 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (see  Isaiah  I  :  i)  and  the  au- 
thor of  the  second  part  of  the  book  speaks  of  Hez- 
ekiah's wife  as  a  type  of  restored  Israel.  See  Isaiah 
62  :  4  and  2  Kings  21:1. 

John  the  Baptist  said  Isaiah  wrote  the  third, 
fourth  and  fifth  verses  of  the  fortieth  chapter  of  the 
book  bearing  his  name.  Hear  him  :  "  I  am  the 
voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  make  straight 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  Isaiah  the  prophet." 
John  i  :  23.  See  also,  Luke  3  :  3-6.  The  Higher 
Critics  teach  that  this  unequivocal  testimony  of  the 
Baptist  is  false. 

The  four  evangelists  and  apostles  believed  the 
one  great  prophet  to  be  the  writer  of  the  entire 
book,  and  quote  125  verses  from  it  and  refer  to  the 
whole  book  162  times. 

The  following  testimonies  explicitly  declare  that 
Isaiah  was  the  author  of  portions  (and  if  portions, 
then  the  whole)  of  chapters  40-66 — "  That  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  Isaiah  the  prophet, 
saying" — And  then  the  inspired  penman  quotes  Isa. 
53:4.  See  Matt.  8:17.  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  by  Isaiah,  the  prophet,  say- 
ing " — And  then  Isa.  42  :  1-3,  is  quoted.  Matt. 
12:  17.  "And  there  was  delivered  unto  Him  (Jesus 
the  Christ)  the  book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  and  he 
opened  the  book,  and  found  the  place  where  it  was 


146  THE  HIGHEST  CKITtCS 

written,"  and  then  read  the  first  verse  and  the  first 
half  of  the  second  of  the  sixty-first  chapter.  Let  it 
be  observed  that  the  portion  read  was  in  the  sixty- 
first  chapter;  and  the  book  was  "The  book  of  the 
prophet  Isaiah."  "  That  the  word  of  Isaiah  the 
prophet  might  be  fulfilled  which  he  spake."  This  word 
is-found  in  Isa.  53  :  i,and  isquoted.  John  12:38-40. 

Luke,  writing  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
says :  "And  Philip  ran  to  him,  and  heard  him  read- 
ing Isaiah  the  prophet.  *  *  *  Now  the  place  of  the 
Scripture  which  he  was  reading  was — "  And  then  he 
quotes  Isa.  53  :  7,  8.  See  Acts  8 :  30-33. 

Paul,  under  Divine  guidance,  says :  "  For  Isaiah 
saith,"  and  then  he  quotes  the  first  clause  of  the 
first  verse  of  the  fifty-first  chapter.  See  Rom.  10 : 
16.  And  again  :  "And  Isaiah  is  very  bold  and  saith — " 
and  then  he  quotes  Isa.  65  :  i.  See  Rom.  10:  20. 

The  Jewish  Church  never  entertained  any  other 
thought  of  the  authorship  than  the  Proto-Isaiah ; 
and  the  consensus  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the 
first  has  been  this :  Isaiah  wrote  the  entire  prophecy 
of  Isaiah. 

Josephus  (Antiq.  9,  13,  3)  speaks  of  Isaiah  the 
prophet  as  one  who  lived  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah 
(also  Antiq.  10,  I,  3).  Then  (Antiq.  n,  i,  2)  he 
gives  the  remarkable  story  of  Cyrus  bringing  help 
to  the  people,  the  reason  for  his  conduct  being  "  his 
reading  the  book  which  Isaiah  left  behind  him  of  his 
prophecies."  Josephus  adds,  "  This  was  foretold  by 
Isaiah  one  hundred  and  forty  years  before  the  Tem- 
ple was  demolished."  It  is  certainly  to  be  regretted 


FS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS^  147 

that  the  advocates  of  the  new  criticism  fail  to  deal 
with  this  ancient  historical  testimony  to  the  single 
authorship. 

The  wording  of  the  decree  of  Cyrus  ordering  the 
erection  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  is  taken  from 
that  part  of  the  prophecy  written,  as  the  Higher 
Critics  tell  us,  after  the  day  of  Cyrus. 

There  is  no  way  to  deny  that  such  a  decree  was 
issued  except  by  declaring  the  whole  book  of  Ezra 
to  be  a  lie,  for  when  the  work  of  rebuilding  the  tem- 
ple was  interrupted,  and  Darius  was  on  the  throne, 
"  There  was  found  at  Achmetha,  in  the  palace  that 
is  in  the  province  of  the  Medes,  a  roll,  and  therein 
was  a  record  thus  written  :  In  the  first  year  of  Cy- 
rus the  king,  the  same  Cyrus  the  king  made  a  decree 
concerning  the  house  of  God  at  Jerusalem,  Let  the 
house  be  builded,  the  place  where  they  offer  sacri- 
fices." Ezra  vi :  2,  3. 

Here  is  the  decree :  "  Thus  saith  Cyrus  king  of 
Persia.  The  Lord  God  of  heaven  hath  given  me  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth ;  and  He  hath  charged 
me  to  build  Him  an  house  at  Jerusalem,  which  is  in 
Judah.  Who  is  there  among  you  of  all  His  people? 
his  God  be  with  him,  and  let  him  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem, which  is  in  Judah,  and  build  the  house  of  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel  (He  is  the  God),  which  is  in 
Jerusalem,"  Ez.  i :  2,  3. 

Here  is  the  prophecy :  '  'That  saith  of  Cyrus, 
He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  perform  all  my  pleas- 
ure :  even  saying  of  Jerusalem,  She  shall  be  built ; 
and  to  the  temple,  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid. 


148  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Thus  saith  the  LORD  to  his  annointed,  to  Cyrus, 
whose  right  hand  I  have  holden,  to  subdue  nations 
before  him,  and  I  will  loose  the  loins  of  kings ;  to 
open  the  doors  before  him,  and  the  gates  shall  not 
be  shut ;  I  will  go  before  thee,  and  make  the  rugged 
places  plain  :  I  will  break  in  pieces  the  doors  of  brass, 
and  cut  in  sunder  the  bars  of  iron :  and  I  will  give 
thee  the  treasures  of  darkness,  and  hidden  riches  of 
secret  places,  that  thou  mayest  know  that  I  am  the 
LORD,  which  call  thee  by  thy  name,  even  the  God 
of  Israel.  For  Jacob  my  servant's  sake,  and  Israel 
my  chosen,  I  have  called  thee  by  thy  name :  I  have 
surnamed  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  me.  I 
am  the  LORD,  and  there  is  none  else ;  beside  me 
there  is  no  God :  I  will  gird  thee,  though  thou  hast 
not  known  me."  Isa.  44 :  28  ;  45  : 1-5. 

It  is  here  stated  (i)  that  a  prophecy  concerning 
Cyrus  and  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  was  uttered  ; 
(2)  that  Cyrus  promulgated  a  decree  in  accordance 
with  the  prophecy  ;  and  (3)  we  find  the  prophecy  in 
the  Book  of  Isaiah.  Now,  then,  the  question  is 
simply  this  :  Who  wrote  the  prophecy  ?  The  Higher 
Critics  say  Isaiah  did  not,  because  a  prophet  could 
not  possibly  see  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  into 
the  future  ;  and  our  "  Literary  Tests  "  show  a  dif- 
ferent style  of  composition  in  chapters  40-66,  from 
what  we  find  in  chapters  1-39.  The  first  postulate 
is  audacious  and  eliminates  the  supernatural  from 
inspiration  ;  and  the  second  arbitrarily  requires  a 
man  to  have  exactly  the  same  style  of  composition 
at  sixty  years  of  age  as  he  had  at  twenty-five  ;  and 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  149 

rules  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  have  more 
than  one  style  of  writing. 

Josephus  says  Isaiah  wrote  it.  To  this  agree  the 
Septuagint  version,  the  Talmud,  the  Targums,  the 
Great  Synagogue, the  later  Synagogue,  Ecclesiasticus, 
John  the  Baptist,  Jesus,  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  by 
Matthew,  Luke,  John  and  Paul,  and  the  Church, 
both  Jewish  and  Christian,  in  all  ages.  And  there  is 
absolutely  not  one  demonstrable  fact  to  the  contrary. 

If  an  other  than  the  son  of  Amoz  wrote  chapters 
40-66,  where  are  his  credentials  ?  Isaiah  began  his 
message  by  saying,  "  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord," 
and  thus  "  saith  the  Lord."  Isa.  I  :  10,  11.  Nearly 
all  the  prophets  of  God  say  the  same  thing.  But 
no  such  announcement  is  made  in  the  opening 
of  the  section  embraced  in  chapters  40-66.  Is  it  at 
all  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  mighty  monarch 
Cyrus  could  be  duped  by  an  unknown  person  into 
rebuilding  the  Temple,  a  most  stupendous  and  cost- 
ly undertaking  ?  Surely  he  knew  it  was  the  will  of 
God  that  he  should  do  this  great  work ;  and  most 
surely  he  knew  the  prophecy  came  by  a  prophet 
properly  accredited,  who  lived  long  before  his  day, 
even  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz. 

I  say  with  Dr.  Joseph  Addison  Alexander,  of 
Princeton,  who,  to  use  the  admission  of  Dr.  Philip 
Schaff:  "Handled  the  Higher  Critics  without 
gloves," — "That  the  criticism  we  are  called  to  re- 
spect, destroys  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  rests  on  assumptions  as  arbitrary  and  capricious 
as  the  adventurous  spirits  who  conceived  them." 


150  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

DANIEL. 

The  narative  of  this  Book  is  very  much  discon- 
nected. History  and  prophecy,  incidents,  dreams 
and  visions  are  so  interwoven  that  it  stands  unique 
among  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  And 
yet  it  is  very  naturally  divided.  The  first  six  chap- 
ters are  historical,  while  the  last  six  are  predictive. 
In  the  historical  part,  though  it  is  not  wholly  histor- 
ical, as  it  contains  a  few  predictions,  we  find  that 
Daniel  and  his  three  companions  were  taken  from 
Jerusalem  after  its  capture  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
to  the  royal  court  in  Babylon  ;  and  numerous  events 
that  occurred  during  the  reigns  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
Darius  and  Cyrus  are  accurately  recorded,  as  is 
shown  by  profane  history,  and  very  clearly  proven 
by  cuneiform  texts  that  archaeologists  have  recently 
brought  to  light.  The  predictive  portion,  though  it 
is  in  part  historical,  relates  chiefly  to  the  Babylo- 
nian, Medo-Persian,  Macedonian  and  Roman  king- 
doms. There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  raised 
against  the  fact  that  the  four  kingdoms  in  chapter 
two  and  the  four  beasts  in  chapter  seven  are  the 
same,  and  signify  the  four  above  mentioned  king- 
doms. Porphyry  acknowledged  that  these  prophe- 
cies were  literally  fulfilled,  though  he  insisted  that 
they  must  have  been  written  after  the  events! 
These  last  six  chapters  are  not  limited,  predictively, 
to  these  four  kingdoms  and  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  151 

but  are  in  a  large  sense  Messianic  and  eschatological, 
as  we  shall  see  a  little  further  on. 

In  the  Jewish  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  this 
Book  was  not  found  among  the  prophets  but  in  the 
miscellaneous  writings  called  the  Hagiographa.  This 
fact,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  writing  does 
not  begin,  as  do  the  other  prophecies,  with  the  dec- 
laration that  it  is  "  The  Word  of  the  Lord,"  is  used 
by  the  Critics  to  justify  them  in  discrediting  it  as  of 
equal  authority  with  the  others.  But  the  Psalms  of 
David  are  also  included  in  the  Hagiographa  and  do 
not  begin  with  such  declaration,  as  are  also  Job, 
Proverbs,  Canticles,  Ruth,  Ezra,  Chronicles,  Eccle- 
siastes  and  Esther.  Shall  we  discredit  all  these? 
We  must  if  the  presence  of  a  Book  in  the  third  col- 
lection of  the  Sacred  Writings  justifies  it. 

After  his  return  from  exile,  Daniel  was  com- 
manded to  "  seal  up  "  his  Apocalypse  "  Unto  the 
time  of  the  end,"  /.  *-.,  not  to  expose  it  to  public 
reading  and  use,  for  the  time  of  the  event  predicted 
as  occurring  after  the  release  was  not  at  hand.  The 
events  related  to  the  distant  future,  viz.:  to  the 
End-time  of  the  third  prophetic  Empire,  or  time  of 
the  Syrian  Antichrist,  and  to  the  End-time  of  the 
fourth  prophetic  Empire,  or  the  time  of  the  last 
Antichrist.  Perhaps  this  order  to  seal  the  Book 
and  keep  it  from  public  use  was  a  reason  why  the 
Book  of  Daniel  was  not  put  among  the  prophetic 
Books  by  Ezra  and  the  compilers  of  the  Jew- 
ish Canon ;  and  Daniel's  name  not  enumerated 
among  the  names  of  the  prophets.  Perhaps,  also, 


152  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

it  was  a  reason  why  when  the  End-time  of  the 
Greek  Empire  came,  and  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
raged  against  the  people  of  God,  it  was  produced 
by  the  High  Priests  and  Custodians  of  the  Sacred 
Oracles,  and  was  so  popular.  Perhaps,  also,  it  was 
again  the  very  reason  why  our  Lord  refers  to  "  Dan- 
iel the  Prophet "  lest  any  might  suppose  he  was  not 
a  prophet,  because  his  Book  was  not  among  the 
prophetic  Books,  but  in  the  "Other  Writings." 

While  it  is  true  Daniel's  Prophecy  is  not  intro- 
duced, as  are  nearly  all  the  other  prophecies,  by  the 
statement  that  it  is  the  Lord  who  is  speaking,  yet  it 
is  true  that  Daniel  uttered  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
for  in  chapter  10 : 9,  he  says:  "  Yet  heard  I  the  voice 
of  His  words :  and  when  I  heard  the  voice  of  His 
words ;"  so  that  his  revelation  is  as  certainly  from 
the  Lord  as  any  other  of  the  Prophets. 

But  many  of  the  same  critics  deny  that  other  of 
the  prophecies  are  "  The  Words  of  the  Lord,"  even 
where  they  are  introduced  by  this  statement.  So 
their  chief  effort  is,  apparently,  to  find  objections  to 
the  writing,  rather  than  to  ascertain  by  what  au- 
thority and  to  what  intent  were  these  books  writ- 
ten. 

THE   AUTHORSHIP. 

The  Higher  Critics  insist  that  Daniel  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  authorship  of  this  Book. 
They  fail  utterly,  however,  to  explain  how  it  ever 
came  to  be  called  "  The  Book  of  Daniel ;  "  nor,  can 
they  tell  us  who  is  the  author.  They  find  refuge  in 


rS.    THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  153 

that  most  illustrious  literary  family  the  world  ever 
knew,  i.  e.,  The  Unknown. 

They  insist  that  it  was  written  some  time  between 
300  B.  C.,  and  the  times  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes ; 
the  more  rationalistic  among  them  insisting  that 
the  work  was  done  during  the  year  167  B.  C.  They 
reach  this  conclusion,  inevitably,  because  their 
"  Near  Horizon  "  theory  will  not  allow  the  prophet 
to  see  beyond  his  own  times,  and,  because  they  studied 
eschatology  in  the  school  of  conjecture,  which  school 
is  located  in  the  State  of  Don't-know-dom ;  and  the 
prophetic  truth  of  Daniel  as  to  the  Anti-Christ,  is 
sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  a  Pre-Christ  called  Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes. 

It  is  not  possible  that  a  writer  living  at  so  late  a 
date  as  167  B.  C.,  could  delineate  so  accurately  the 
details  of  the  historic  narratives  of  this  Book,  as  the 
cuneiform  records  prove  them  to  be.  These  cunei- 
form records  have  verified  almost  every  historic 
statement  of  the  Book,  and  disclosed  no  error  any- 
where, which  fact  is  inconceivable  from  the  stand- 
point of  authorship  assumed  by  the  Critics.  Francois 
Lenormant,  Prof,  of  Archaeology  at  the  National 
Library  of  France,  says  :  "  The  more  often  I  read 
the  Book  of  Daniel  and  compare  it  with  the  cunei- 
form records,  the  more  striking  seems  the  fidelity  of 
the  picture  given  by  the  first  six  chapters  of  the 
Babylonian  court,  and  the  superstitions  of  the  time 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  the  more  strongly  am  I 
impressed  with  the  conviction  that  at  least  this  por- 
tion of  the  Book  was  written  in  Babylon  itself,  and 


154  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

not  far  from  the  time  of  the  events  related,  and  so 
the  more  impracticable  and  incorrect  it  seems  to  me 
to  transfer  its  origin  to  a  date  as  late  as  that  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes." 

The  first  six  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  have 
a  historical  value  which  cannot  be  contested,  con- 
firmed as  it  is  by  the  recovered  cuneiform  texts. 
They  must,  therefore,  have  been  composed  at  a  date 
not  far  removed  from  the  persons  and  events  of 
which  they  treat,  by  some  one  having  access  to  the 
original  Babylonian  documents,  perhaps  fragments 
of  Nebuchadnezzar's  official  annals. 

The  style,  temper,  sentiment,  movement  of 
thought  and  personal  characteristics  of  this  writing 
belong  to  a  much  earlier  time  than  300  B.  C.  Even 
Canon  Driver  admits  that  "  In  warmth  of  religious 
feeling,  and  in  the  unflinching  maintenance  of  Di- 
vine truth,  the  Book  resembles  closely  enough  the 
writings  of  the  older  prophets." 

Dr.  Pusey  says :  "  I  would  note,  how  Dr.  Payne 
Smith,  Mr.  McGill  and  myself,  independently  of 
one  another,  observed  that  Daniel  and  Ezra  agree 
so  remarkably,  not  only  in  differing  from  the  Tar- 
gums,  but  in  their  correspondence  with  Western 
Aramaic  or  Syriac.  This  correspondence,  too,  be- 
longs very  remarkably  to  the  grammar  as  well  as 
to  the  vocabulary.  This  is  further  illustrated  by 
the  correspondence  with  what  Mr.  McGill  rightly 
calls  the  "  Syrizing "  Targums.  This  character  of 
the  Chaldee,  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  separates  them  off 
from  the  Targums,  which  come  nearest  to  their  age, 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  155 

by  an  almost  dialectic  difference,  analagous  to  the 
difference  of  the  Greek  of  Homer  from  that  of  later 
Greek  writers,  when  the  dialects  became  distinct. 
It  is  yet  further  illustrated  by  the  correspondence 
of  both  Daniel  and  Ezra  with  the  Samaritan,  which, 
whatever  be  the  age  of  its  Targum,  was  separated 
off  from  its  parent-stock  of  Eastern  Aramaic  at  a 
period  earlier  than  even  Daniel  and  Ezra." 

Perowne  says  :  "  The  use  of  the  Aryan  words 
chiefly  turns  the  scale  on  the  side  of  the  earlier 
date." 

Josephus  tells  us  that  Alexander  the  Great  en- 
tered Jerusalem  about  330  B.  C.,  and  offered  sacri- 
fice to  God  in  the  Temple,  where  the  High  Priest 
showed  him  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  (Dan.  7:6;  8 : 
7)  which  predicted  the  overthrow  of  the  Persian  Em- 
pire by  a  Greek  King,  which  he  felt  could  apply  to 
none  other  than  himself. 

The  Talmud  tells  us  that  the  Book  of  Daniel 
dates  from  the  time  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  If 
it  only  dates  from  167  B.  C.,  on  what  grounds  can 
its  presence  in  the  Septuagint  version  be  accounted 
for,  without  arbitrarily  denying  the  incontestable 
evidence  of  the  age  of  this  venerable  document  ? 

Canon  Driver  says:  "Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach 
(writing  200  B.  c).,  in  his  enumeration  of  Israelitish 
worthies,  chaps.  44-50,  though  he  mentions  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  (collectively)  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  is  silent  as  to  Daniel." 

The  following  answer  is  taken  from  Smith's  Bible 

Dictionary  :  "  In  reply  to  these  remarks,  it  may  be 
11 


156  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

urged,  that  if  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  already 
placed  among  the  Hagiographa  at  the  time  when 
the  "  Wisdom  of  Sirach  "  was  written,  the  omis- 
sion of  the  name  of  Daniel  (Eccles.  49)  is  most  nat- 
ural, and  that  under  any  circumstances  the  omission 
is  not  more  remarkable  than  that  of  Ezra  and  the 
twelve  lesser  prophets,  for  49 :  10  is  probably  an 
interpolation  intended  to  supply  a  supposed  defect." 

And  so  the  Canon — as  other  critics — in  his  des- 
perate straits  to  find  arguments  that  will  support 
his  non-prophetic  view  of  this  Book,  tries  to  prove 
his  position  by  the  use  of  a  probably  interpolated 
passage  from  a  secular  writing. 

Daniel  is  mentioned  repeatedly  in  the  Book  as  its 
author.  See  chapters  7 :  2,  1 5,  28  ;  8  :  I  ;  9  :  22  ;  10 : 
1-19;  12:  5.  In  the  first  six  chapters  Daniel 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person.  In  Chapter 
6  he  speaks  in  the  first  person :  "  I,  Daniel,  etc.," 
and  claims  to  have  received  a  revelation  from 
heaven.  This  is  no  proof  that  there  were  two  au- 
thors. Caesar,  Thucydides  and  others  spoke  of  them- 
selves in  the  third  person  as  well  as  in  the  first.  It 
was  a  common  practice  in  ancient  times.  More- 
over, in  the  last  six  chapters,  Daniel,  who  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  first  person,  speaks  of  himself  twice 
in  the  third  person.  See  Dan.  7:  i;  10:  I.  The 
entire  cast  and  setting  of  the  work  is  altogether 
consistent  with  his  authorship. 

Matt.  24:15  tells  us  that  Jesus  said:  "When 
therefore  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desolation 
which  was  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet,"  etc., 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  157 

etc.  We  here  note  that  Jesus  said  Dan.  9 :  26,  27 
was  spoken  by  Daniel ;  and,  notwithstanding  the 
critics  have  removed  him  from  the  illustrious  com- 
pany of  the  holy  prophets,  Jesus  most  explicitly 
states  that  he  was  one,  and  uttered  at  least  one  pre- 
diction that  has  a  clear  and  distinct  eschatological 
significance.  This  testimony  of  the  Highest  Critic 
settles  not  only  the  question  of  authorship  but  of 
the  age  of  the  Book  as  well.  To  question  this  testi- 
mony is  to  degrade  the  son  of  God  to  the  level  of 
the  Higher  Critics  and  rob  Him  of  His  Godhood. 
Such  questioning  makes  the  teachings  of  Jesus  the 
Christ  of  no  greater  value  than  those  of  Socrates, 
Edmund  Burk  or  Renan  ;  and  places  us,  as  touching 
the  purposes  of  God  in  grace,  on  a  stormy  sea,  in  an 
open  boat  without  rudder,  chart  or  compass.  It  is 
destructive  to  the  last  degree,  and  should  be  most 
emphatically  condemned  by  all  who  profess  loyalty 
to  God's  word  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  the 
Saviour  of  men. 

The  Critics  insist  upon  a  dual  authorship,  be- 
cause the  Book  is  divided  into  two  parts,  according 
to  their  "  Literary  Tests,"  though  many  competent 
Critics  such  as  Hitzig  andDeWette,  think  otherwise. 
They — the  Critics — call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
about  half  the  Book  is  written  in  Hebrew  and  the 
other  half  in  Aramaic,  as  though  this  fact  supported 
their  theory.  But  they  met  with  an  insuperable 
difficulty  in  the  fact  that  the  first  chapter  is  in 
Hebrew  and  the  seventh  in  Aramaic. 

They  question  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  first 


158  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

six  chapters  on  the  ground  of  the  many  extraordi- 
nary miracles  recorded  therein.  If  they  were  to  ap- 
ply this  rule  to  the  four  Gospels,  the  world  would  be 
left  almost  wholly  without  any  historical  knowledge 
of  Jesus  the  Christ. 

The  dimensions  of  the  golden  image  which 
Nebuchadnezzar  caused  to  be  erected  on  the  plain 
of  Dura  are  said,  by  the  Critics,  to  be  without  doubt, 
an  exaggeration.  They  reason  from  this  assumption 
that  the  Book,  historically,  is  therefore  unreliable, 
and,  to  be  consistent,  not  inspired  at  all.  Prof. 
Lenormant  says  "  That  it  was  the  custom  to  erect 
golden  images  of  colossal  size,  admits  of  no  ques- 
tion. The  three  statues  which  crowned  the  pyra- 
mid E-saggal  in  Babylon,  previous  to  its  sacking  by 
Xerxes,  represented  (according  to  Diodorus  Siculus) 
together  with  their  altar  and  other  appurtenances,  a 
weight  of  gold  of  5,850  talents,  143,559  kilogrammes 
— /.  e.,  a  value  of  430,677,000  francs.  The  sanctuary 
of  the  storied  pyramid  at  Borsippa  contained  (at 
least  up  to  the  time  of  Xerxes)  a  similar  massive 
golden  image,  the  height  of  which  was,  according  to 
Herodotus  not  less  than  twelve  cubits." 

Prof.  Pusey  says  :  "  I  am  indebted  for  my  knowl- 
edge of  the  following  facts  to  my  friend  Dr.  Green- 
hill  :  '  The  Marquis  de  Beauvoir  thus  describes  the 
pagoda  of  Xetuphon.  Imagine  yourself  with  us  be- 
neath a  colonnade  of  teak-wood,  and  in  an  immense 
sanctuary,  where  the  god  is  extended  his  full  length  ; 
and  this  is  no  small  matter,  for  he  measured  one 
hundred  and  fifty  feet  from  the  shoulder  to  the 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  159 

soles  of  his  feet.  This  gigantic  body,  in  masonry,  is 
completely  and  entirely  guilt.  It  lies  on  the  right 
side  ;  a  guilded  terrace,  ornamented  with  sculptures, 
serves  for  his  couch.  His  head,  of  which  the  sum- 
mit is  eighty  feet  above  the  ground,  is  supported  by 
the  right  arm,  which  rests  towards  the  entrance 
door.  His  left  arm  is  extended  along  the  thigh ; 
his  eyes  are  of  silver,  his  lips  pink  enamel,  and  on 
his  head  is  a  crown  of  red  gold.  We  look  like  Lilli- 
putians around  Gulliver ;  and  if  we  try  to  climb  up 
upon  him,  we  disappear  altogether  in  his  nostrils : 
one  of  his  nails  is  taller  than  any  of  us.  We  stood 
amazed  before  this  Titian  work,  of  which  the  archi- 
tect can  only  have  been  paid  by  the  riches  of  Croe- 
sus. This  gigantic  coating  of  the  purest  gold  must 
be  worth  Milliards ;  each  sheet  of  metal  (and  there 
must  have  been  thousands)  is  nearly  two  square  feet 
in  size,  and  weighs,  they  tell  us,  450  ounces  of 
gold." 

"Another  Buddha,  in  the  royal  Pagoda,  of  ordi- 
nary dimensions,  is  of  massive  gold  ;  its  head  is  of  a 
single  emerald,  delicately  cut  and  of  a  marvelous 
luster,  surmounted  with  a  helmet  of  sapphire  and 
opal.  The  English  Consul  is  said  to  have  offered  for 
it  a  million  pounds  sterling  in  the  name  of  his  govern- 
ment. The  annals  of  the  kingdom  speak  of  its  dis- 
covery seven  or  eight  centuries  ago." 

And  so  we  know  that  others  in  those  far  east 
countries  besides  Nebuchadnezzar  were  given  to  the 
pastime  or  religious  duty  of  manufacturing  colossal 
golden  images,  and  thus  verifying  Daniel's  story. 


160  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

THE  PROPHESIES   OF   THE   BOOK. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  of  the  great  image  and 
the  increasing  stone  was  accurately  interpreted  by 
Daniel.  The  Babylonian  Kingdom  was  indicated  by 
the  "  Head  of  gold  ;"  the  Medo-Persian  by  the  "breast 
and  arms  of  silver ;  "  the  Macedonian,  or  Grecian, 
by  the  "  Belly  and  thighs  (sides)  of  brass ; "  the 
Roman  by  the  "  Legs  of  iron  ; "  and  the  ten  sub- 
divisions of  the  Roman  Empire  by  the  "  Ten  toes 
of  iron  and  clay."  The  predictive  teaching  of  this 
image  and  the  interpretation  of  it  by  Daniel,  has 
been  demonstrated  by  history,  in  that  the  things 
foreseen  and  foretold  have  most  surely  come  to 
pass.  The  efforts  of  the  Higher  Critics  to  destroy 
the  prophetical  characteristics  of  this  Book  are  piti- 
able in  the  extreme,  and  certainly  ought  to  be  hu- 
miliating to  all  honest  and  reverent  scholars. 

It  was  quite  as  much  a  prophecy  to  describe  the 
world-wide  Empire  of  Rome  167  years  B.  C.,  as  it 
would  have  been  to  do  so  600  years  B.  C.,  and  in 
their  efforts  to  reconcile  the  facts  in  the  case  to 
their  theory,  the  Higher  Critics  invaribly  beg  the 
question  or  throw  dust  into  the  air. 

Concerning  the  interpretation  given  of  "  The 
Stone"  (See  Dan.  2535,  44,  45),  it  may  here  be 
said,  it  is  not  possible,  by  any  established  ruler  of 
interpretation  and  exegesis,  to  reconcile  it  to  the 
fact  historically  recorded  of  any  kingdom  the  world 
has  yet  seen.  "  The  Stone  "  represented  a  King- 
dom that  shall  subdue,  overthrow  and  destroy  all 
other  kingdoms,  becoming  universal  and  to  "  stand 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  161 

forever."  There  is  nothing,  historically  nothing, 
prospectively  nothing,  and  conjecturally  nothing, 
that  will  answer  to  the  interpretation,  save  the 
Messianic  Kingdom  ;  and  this  does,  in  every  par- 
ticular. See  Psa.  2 :  6-9 ;  Luke  I  :  31-33  ;  Rev.  n  : 
15  ;  Phil.  2:9-11;  etc.,  etc. 

In  chapter  seven  we  have  a  record  of  "  A  dream 
and  visions"  that  Daniel  had,  which  were  propheti- 
cal of  the  same  things  predicted  in  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream,  excepting — as  we  shall  see — apocalyptically, 
they  were  more  comprehensive  and  specific.  In 
this  case  Babylon  is  represented  by  a  "  Lion," 
Medo-Persia  by  a  "  Bear,"  Greece  by  a  "  Leopard," 
Rome  by  "  A  fourth  beast,"  and  the  ten  kingdoms 
by  the  "  Ten  horns  of  the  '  Fourth  beast.'  "  From 
among  the  "Ten  horns"  arises  a  "Little  horn," 
and  it  becomes  mightier  than  all  the  rest.  It  can- 
not possibly  be  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  because  it 
was  not  manifested  until  after  the  destruction  of 
the  Roman  Empire  ;  and,  it  is  itself  the  mighty 
power  that  uproots  three  of  the  ten-horn  kingdoms, 
and  subdues  the  other  seven,  the  ten  arising  out  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  These  kingdoms  still  exist, 
and  the  prophecy  plainly  tells  us  that  the  "  Little 
horn's  "  power  is  to  be  manifested  in  the  end  times 
of  this  dispensation.  Let  us  analyze  the  chapter 
and  see  what  it  teaches  about  the  "  Little  horn :  " 

First — It  appears  in  the  end  time.     Verses  21,  22. 
Second — It  usurps  Divine  prerogatives.     Verses  24,  25. 
Third — It  has  the  power  of  blasphemy.     Verse  25. 
Fourth — It  persecutes  the  Saints.     Verse  25. 
Fifth — It  comes  to  its  end  suddenly.     Verse  n. 


162  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Sixth — It  goes  into  perdition.     Verses  n,  26. 

Seventh — Its  destruction,  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  the  gath- 
ering together  of  the  Saints  and  the  establishing  of  the  ever- 
lasting kingdom  synchronize.  Verses  13,  14,  18,  27. 

Will  the  reader  now  please  turn  to  2  Thess.  2 :  1-9 
and  let  us  see  what  are  the  characteristics  of  the 
"  Man  of  Sin,"  and  what  of  his  future : 

First— He  appears  in  the  end  time.     Verses  2  and  3. 
Second — He  is  energized  by  Satan.     Verse  9. 
Third — He  usurps  Divine  prerogatives.     Verse  4. 
Fourth — He  is  a  blasphemer.     Verse  4. 
Fifth — He  possesses  superhuman  power.     Verse  9. 
Sixth — He  persecutes  the  Saints  and  many  fall  away.  Verse  3. 
Seventh — He  comes  to  his  end  suddenly.     Verse  8. 
Eighth — He  goes  into  perdition.     Verse  3. 
Ninth — The  coming  of  the  Lord  and  gathering  of  the  Saints 
synchronize  with  his  destruction.     Verse  8. 

Now  will  the  reader  please  turn  to  Revelation, 
chapter  thirteen,  and  notice  the  characteristics  of 
"  The  Beast  "  with  the  wounded  head  : 

First — He  is  energized  by  Satan.     Verses  2  and  4. 

Second — He  is  a  great  world  power.     Verse  7. 

Third — He  usurps  Divine  prerogatives.     Verse  4. 

Fourth — He  is  a  blasphemer.     Verses  i,  5  and  6. 

Fifth — He  has  superhuman  power.     Verse  2. 

Sixth — He  makes  war  upon  the  Saints  and  many  fall  away. 
Verses  4,  7  and  15. 

Seventh — He  comes  to  his  end  suddenly.   Chapter  19 :  20,  21. 

Eighth — He  goes  into  perdition.   Chapters  17:8  and  19:20. 

Ninth — He  appears  in  the  end  time.     Chapter  14:  7-12. 

Tenth — His  destruction  synchronizes  with  the  coming  of  the 
Lord.  Chapter  19 : 1 1-21 . 

With  these  Scriptures  before  us  is  it  not  incon- 
trovertably  evident  to  an  unbiased  mind  that  the 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  163 

"  Beast "  of  Revelation,  Paul's  "  Man  of  Sin,"  and 
Daniel's  "Little  Horn  "  are  one  and  the  same?  and 
none  other  than  the  Anti-Christ  ?  Isaiah  prophesied 
of  him  before  Daniel's  day  (See  Isa.  14:12-17), 
and  the  Saviour  warns  his  church  against  him.  (See 
Matt.  24 : 23-28.) 

The  non-prophetic  views  of  the  Higher  Critics, 
make  it  impossible  that  they  should  be  right  escha- 
tologically.  And  this  explains  why  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes  is  driven  like  a  coach  and  four  through  the 
prophecies  of  Daniel.  The  following  very  wise  and 
truthful  words  were  written  by  the  late  Prof. 
Delitzsch :  "  No  interpretation  of  prophecy,  on 
sound  principles,  is  any  longer  possible  from  the 
standpoint  of  Antichiliasm,  inasmuch  as  the  Anti- 
chiliasts  twist  words  in  the  mouths  of  the  prophets 
and,  by  their  perversion  of  Scripture,  shake  the 
very  foundation  of  all  doctrines,  everyone  of  which 
rests  on  the  plain  and  simple  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  Revelation." 

In  the  eighth  chapter,  Daniel  has  another  vision 
which  develops  the  parts  of  his  former  vision 
touched  upon  most  lightly,  i.  e.,  the  Persian  and 
Grecian  Empires.  He  says  nothing  concerning 
Babylon  or  Rome,  and  is  silent  on  the  subject  of 
the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  Everlasting  King- 
dom. 

In  the  ninth  chapter  is  a  most  definite  and  ex- 
plicit Messianic  prophecy.  Verses  24-27.  The 
times  of  Messiah  are  here  exactly  stated.  It  was 
seventy  Heptades,  or  periods  of  seven,  i.  e.,  490 


164  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

years,  from  the  decree  of  Cyrus  "  To  restore  and  to 
build  Jerusalem,  unto  the  Messiah."  From  455 
B.  C.,  the  time  Cyrus  issued  his  decree,  to  A.  D.  33. 
When  Christ  was  "cut  off,"  is  488  years.  But,  as 
Christ  was  born  from  four  to  five  years  before  the 
Christian  era,  as  commonly  reckoned,  only  sixty- 
nine  Heptades  have  been  fulfilled.  Therefore  Dan- 
iel's seventieth  week  is,  without  doubt,  apocalyp- 
tic. 

In  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters  are  some  prophe- 
cies, in  detail,  that  cover  the  historical  period  from 
Cyrus  to  the  domination  of  the  Roman  Empire,  all 
of  which  have  been  fulfilled. 

The  twelfth  chapter  has  to  do  with  the  end 
times.  The  first  four  verses  are  as  follows : 

And  at  that  time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the  great  prince 
which  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people ;  and  there  sliall 
be  a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation 
even  to  that  same  time ;  and  at  that  time  thy  people  shall  be 
delivered  every  one  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the  book. 
And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt.  And  they  that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the 
brightness  of  the  firmament;  and  they  that  turn  many  to 
righteousness  as  the  stars  for  ever  and  ever.  But  thou,  O  Dan- 
iel, shut  up  the  words,  and  seal  the  book,  even  to  the  time 
of  the  end ;  many  shall  run  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  shall  be 
increased. 

Michael  is  without  doubt  the  angel  mentioned  in 
Rev.  20 :  i,  and  "  That  time,"  is  the  end  of  this  dis- 
pensation. It  is  the  time  of  "  The  great  tribula- 
tion." See  Matt.  24 :  29-3 1  ;  Rev.  3:5;  13:8;  20 : 


VS.    THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  165 

15.  These  explain  the  last  clause  of  the  first  verse. 
The  second  verse  has  reference  to  the  resurrections, 
"both  of  the  just  and  the  unjust,"  which,  of  course, 
take  place  in  the  end  times.  Dr.  Tregelles  renders 
the  verse  thus  :  "  Many  from  among  the  sleepers  of 
the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  these — that  awake 
— shall  be  unto  everlasting  life,  and  these — the  rest 
of  the  sleepers — unto  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt." The  Critics  do  utmost  violence  to  even 
their  own  "  Literary  tests  "  in  spiritualizing  such  ex- 
plicit language  as  Dan.  12:2.  Dean  Alford,  in 
speaking  of  such  mistreatment  of  this  and  similar 
Scriptural  passages,  says :  "  To  spiritualize  such 
statements,  is  to  make  an  end  of  all  significance  to 
language,  and  wipe  out  the  Bible  as  a  definite  testi- 
mony to  anything." 

Then  I  Daniel  looked  and  behold,  there  stood  other  two,  the 
one  on  the  brink  of  the  river  on  this  side,  and  the  other  on  the 
brink  of  the  river  on  that  side.  And  one  said  to  the  man 
clothed  in  linen,  which  was  above  the  waters  of  the  river, 
How  long  shall  it  be  to  the  end  of  these  wonders?  And  I 
heard  the  man  clothed  in  linen,  which  was  above  the  waters  of 
the  river,  when  he  held  up  his  right  hand  and  his  left  hand 
unto  heaven,  and  sware  by  him  that  liveth  for  ever  that  it  shall 
be  for  a  time,  times,  and  an  half;  and  when  they  have  made  an 
end  of  breaking  in  pieces  the  power  of  the  holy  people,  all 
these  things  shall  be  finished. 

Rev.  10 :  5-8,  and,  11:15,  17,  18,  will  explain  the 
above  verses. 

The  critics  will  continue  their  destructive  work 
to  the  very  great  delight  of  infidel  scoffers,  and  thus 
minister  unto  their  own  intellectual  pride  ;  but  it 


166  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

remains  true,  incontrovertibly  true,  that  many  of  the 
prophecies  of  Daniel  have  been  fulfilled  ;  and,  by 
parity  of  reasoning,  we  conclude  in  spite  of  Higher 
Critics,  and  Lower  Critics,  and  enemies  of  God,  and 
demons,  and  the  power  of  the  "  Lawless  One," 
which  is  already  felt,  that  those  that  reach  onward 
to  the  end  time  will  be  also,  because  "  No  prophecy 
ever  came  by  the  will  of  man ;  but  men  spake  from 
God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  2  Peter 
1 :  21. 

"And  I  heard,  but  I  understood  not :  then  said  I,  O  my 
lord,  what  shall  be  the  issue  of  these  things  ?  And  he  said, 
Go  thy  way,  Daniel :  for  the  words  are  shut  up  and  sealed  till 
the  time  of  the  end.  Many  shall  purify  themselves,  and  make 
themselves  white,  and  be  refined ;  but  the  wicked  shall  do 
wickedly  ;  and  none  of  the  wicked  shall  understand  :  but  they 
that  be  wise  shall  understand.  And  from  the  time  that  the 
continual  burnt  offering  shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  abomin- 
ation that  maketh  desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand 
two  hundred  and  ninety  days.  Blessed  is  he  that  waiteth,  and 
cometh  to  the  thousand  three  hundred  and  five  and  thirty 
days.  But  go  thou  thy  way  till  the  end  be;  for  thou  shalt  rest, 
and  shalt  stand  in  thy  lot,  at  the  end  of  the  days." 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS,  167 


CHAPTER  XV. 

ESTHER. 

This  Book  has  been  under  more  or  less  suspicion 
from  very  early  times.  Dean  Stanley  says :  "  Of 
all  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  it  is 
the  one  which  lingered  longest  on  the  outskirts,  and 
has  provoked  the  most  uneasy  suspicion  since." 
This  was  said  with  reference  to  the  views  enter- 
tained of  it  by  the  Church  of  God.  The  chief  cause 
of  such  suspicion  is  the  fact  that  the  Septuagint 
version,  while  agreeing  in  the  main  with  the  Hebrew 
text,  makes  extended  and  numerous  additions 
thereto.  This  is  doubtless  the  reason  why  some  of 
the  Church  fathers  were  skeptical  as  to  its  genuine- 
ness. Melito  and  Athanasius  left  it  out  of  their 
lists  of  Canonical  Books,  though  its  intense  Hebrew- 
ism may  have  influenced  them  somewhat. 

It  was  among  the  latest  books  admitted  to  the 
Canon,  and  was  placed  among  the  Hagiographa. 
It  became,  to  the  Jews,  the  most  precious  of  them 
all  and  was  emphatically  the  roll,  "  the  Megillah" 
It  was  believed  that  it  would  outlast  all  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  save  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  when  Mes- 
siah would  come  all  the  other  Scriptures  would  be 
done  away  with  save  these  two. 

The  Higher  Critics  insist  that  the  narrative  as  a 
whole,  seems  to  read  as  a  romance  rather  than  a  his- 
tory. One  says :  "  It  is  safer  to  regard  it  as  histor- 
ical fiction  rather  than  as  veritable  history."  He 


168  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS. 

goes  further  and  says :  "  It  seems  like  blasphemy  to 
intimate  that  God  had  anything  to  do  with  its  com- 
position." These  views  are  entertained  chiefly 
because  the  plot,  plan  and  movement  of  the  narra- 
tive are  so  very  dramatic  as  to  seem  unhistorical, 
and  the  ignoring  of  the  supernatural  in  their  postu- 
lates. Canon  Driver  admits  that  "  Fact,  however, 
is  proverbially  sometimes  stranger  than  fiction,  so 
that  it  is  somewhat  precarious  to  build  a  far-reach- 
ing argument  upon  appearances  of  this  nature."  The 
proofs  of  the  historicity  of  the  Book,  however,  are 
numerous  and  convincing.  First — The  verifications 
by  profane  history,  include  the  times,  customs, 
events,  country  and  persons  mentioned.  See  Jose- 
ph us  Ant.  Book  n,  chap.  6,  and  the  Greek  histories. 
Dean  Stanley  in  speaking  of  the  historical  situation 
of  the  Book,  says  :  "  Then  come  the  various  scenes 
of  the  catastrophy,  everyone  of  which  is  full  of  the 
local  genius  of  the  Empire,  as  we  know  it,  alike 
through  the  accounts  of  the  earliest  Grecian  travel- 
ers and  the  latest  English  investigators."  Canon 
Driver  confesses  that  "  The  character  of  Xerxes,  as 
drawn  by  him  (the  writer  of  Esther)  is  in  agreement 
with  history."  The  Archaeologists  have  discovered 
the  ruins  of  Ahasuerus'  palace  in  Shushan,  and  "  In 
the  court  of  the  garden  "  they  found  "  a  pavement 
of  red,  and  white,  and  yellow,  and  black  marble," 
exactly  as  mentioned  in  Esther  I  :  5,  6.  Second — 
The  Persian  words  and  those  of  Chaldaic  affinity 
found  in  the  Book,  are  not  found  in  the  older  He- 
brew texts,  and  therefore  fit  the  writing  to  its  his- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  169 

toric  situation.  Third — The  feast  of  Purim.  This 
feast  is  held  by  the  Jews  to  be  second  in  importance 
to  the  Feast  of  the  Passover.  This  latter  Feast  is 
observed  in  commemoration  of  the  passing  over  of 
the  Death  Angel,  and  sparing  the  "  First  Born  "  of 
the  obedient  Israelites,  that  awful  night,  when  the 
"  First  Born  "  in  each  Egyptian  household  was  slain. 
Is  it  possible  that  such  a  Feast  as  Purim  could  have 
been  instituted  without  an  historical  occasion?  Does 
not  the  deliverance  of  God's  ancient  people,  scat- 
tered throughout  the  broad  Empire  of  Persia,  as 
recorded  in  Esther,  exactly  suit  the  case?  In  Es- 
ther 9:  15-28  we  have  a  record  of  the  appointing  of 
the  Feast,  and  we  know  that  it  has  been  observed 
from  that  time  until  now. 

A  great  majority  of  the  ablest  exegetes  favor  the 
historic  view,  among  them  such  distinguished 
scholars  as  Baumgarten,  Haverru'ck,  Keil,  Staehelin, 
Berthen  and  Ewald. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

Eichhorn,  Keil  and  others  put  this  writing  in  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  464 — 425  B.C.  Rawlinson  fixes 
it  /\<\/\ — 434  B.  C.  It  has  always  been  recorded  in  the 
Jewish  canon.  Humanly  speaking  no  one  could 
write  the  Book  personally  unfamiliar  with  the  laws 
and  customs  of  the  Persian  court.  The  details  of 
the  narrative  justify  such  a  view  of  the  case.  There 
is  no  one  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge  who 
could  possibly  do  this  work  save  "  Mordecai  the 
Jew."  We  find  in  him  all  the  prerequisites  for 


170  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

such  a  work.  In  chapters  8  :  8-10,  and  9  :  20,  23,  29 
it  is  recorded  that  he  did  some  writing,  and  was, 
therefore,  somewhat  of  a  scribe.  Beside,  he  was 
personally  familiar  with  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 
However,  in  the  absence  of  any  explicit  testimony 
of  the  Highest  Critics  as  to  the  authorship  of  this 
Book,  we  may  not  insist  on  our  view ;  but,  after 
carefully  weighing  all  the  evidence  pro.  and  con.,  we 
express  it  as  our  conviction  that  "  Mordecai  the  Jew" 
wrote  the  Book  of  Esther. 

It  is  urged  by  the  Critics  that  the  ferocious  and 
blood-thirsty  spirit  manifested  by  Esther  and  Mor- 
decai was  not  Christ-like,  and,  therefore,  the  Book  is 
not  inspired,  and  should  never  have  been  admitted 
into  the  Jewish  canon.  Exodus,  Numbers,  Deuter- 
onomy, Joshua,  Judges,  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles, 
and  The  Psalms,  by  the  same  ruling,  ought  not  to 
have  been  admitted  to  the  canon  ;  for  Moses,  Joshua, 
Gideon  and  David  were  men  of  blood  and  slaughter. 
But  the  ferocity  and  blood-thirstiness  of  Esther  and 
Mordecai  is  greatly  magnified  by  the  Critics.  Let 
the  whole  situation  be  taken  into  the  account,  as 
well  as  the  times  and  people,  and  dispassionately 
considered,  and  I  am  sure  their  criticism  is  not  justi- 
fied. Let  it  also  be  remembered  that  they  were  liv- 
ing under  law  and  not  under  grace,  and  then  it  will 
be  understood  why  so  few  comparatively  of  the  Old 
Testament  heroes  were  in  any  sense  Christ-like. 

The  Critics  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  Book  be- 
cause the  name  of  God  does  not  once  occur  in  it. 
Ewald  says :  "  In  passing  from  other  Books  of  the 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  171 

Old  Testament  to  Esther,  we  fall  from  heaven  to 
earth."  Canon  Driver  says:  "  It  is  remarkable  that 
whereas  generally  in  the  Old  Testament,  national 
and  religious  interests  are  commingled,  they  are  here 
divorced  :  the  national  being  extremely  strong,  and 
the  religious  feeling  being  practically  absent  alto- 
gether." The  Critic  finds  what  he  wants  to  find. 
How  any  one  can  be  spiritually  minded  and  prayer- 
fully study  the  Book  of  Esther,  and  write  such  a 
statement  as  the  above,  is  more  than  I  can  under- 
stand. Dean  Stanley  saw  it  otherwise  for  he  says : 
"  The  name  of  God  is  not  there,  but  the  work  of  God 
is." 

When  it  is  remembered  that  the  Jews  but  seldom 
wrote  or  spoke  the  name  of  God,  and  when  they 
did  it  was  with  a  profound  and  awe  inspiring  rever- 
ence, it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  it  is  not  men- 
tioned in  this  Book,  written  as  it  was  in  the  land  of 
the  stranger. 

But  let  us  examine  it  a  little  closely  and  see  if 
we  can  find  any  Spiritual  lessons.  Dr.  Pierson 
says,  "  The  doctrine  of  God's  Providence  finds  here 
a  historical  and  pictorial  parable."  First — There  is 
behind  human  affairs  an  unseen  hand  guiding  and 
directing  according  to  the  purposes  of  God  in  mercy 
and  grace.  (Isa.  58 :  1 1  ;  Psa.  25:9.)  Wherever 
in  God's  Word  was  this  fact  more  clearly  and  forci- 
bly set  forth?  Second — Both  evil  and  good  have 
their  ultimate  awards.  (Jno.  5  :  28,  29  ;  2  Cor.  5:10; 
Rev.  22:  1 8.)  Third — The  prosperity  and  exhalta- 

tion  of  the  wicked  is  unsatisfying  and   shortlived 
12 


172  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

and  terminates  in  adversity.  (Psa.  92  :  7  ;  73  :  3  ; 
17:  20.)  Fourth — The  adversity  of  the  good  is  a 
trial  of  faith,  issuing  in  prosperity.  (Heb.  12:  5-11  ; 
Rom.  8  :  28.)  Fifth — Retribution  is  administered 
with  poetic  exactness.  (Gal.  6:7;  Rev.  20:  13.) 
Sixth — The  most  minute  events  are  woven  into 
God's  plan.  (Matt.  10:  29-31  ;  Acts  27:  34.)  Sev- 
enth— Providence  is  not  fate,  but  consists  with 
prayer  and  resolve,  freedom  and  responsibility. 
(James  i:  17;  Phil.  4:  19;  i  John  5:  13,  14.) 

The  doctrine  of  substitution  is  beautifully  sug- 
gested by  Esther's  willingness  to  die  for  the  people, 
a  voluntary  and  vicarious  sacrifice.  Esther's  com- 
munication with  the  King  suggests  the  believer's 
fellowship  with  the  King  of  Glory.  (See  Jno.  14  : 
23,  and  I  Jno.  i  :  7.)  Esther's  marriage  suggests 
the  relations  of  Christ  and  His  Bride — the  Church. 
(See  2  Cor.  11:2;  Eph.  5  :  22-27  ;  Matt.  25  :  1-12.) 
The  answers  she  received  to  her  supplications  are 
quite  in  line  with  the  doctrine  of  acceptable  prayer. 
The  unlimited  and  innumerable  promises  of  God 
are  typified  in  Esther  8 :  8.  The  final  victory  over 
all  her  foes,  is  what  is  at  last  to  be  gloriously  true 
of  the  Bride  of  Jesus  Christ.  (Rev.  21:7;  3:21.) 

Let  us  examine  a  little  closer  and  we  shall  find  a 
rich  mine  of  eschatalogical  truth:  Ahasuerus' was 
a  mighty  monarch  (See  Chap,  i  :  1-4),  and  in  his  re- 
gal splendor  was  a  type  of  Jesus  as  King,  when  He 
shall  reign  from  the  rivers  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
(See  Isa.  9:6,7;  Luke  1:31-33;  Rev.  11:15-17; 
Phil.  2  : 9-1 1  ;  Rev.  5  :  1 1-13.) 


FS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  173 

Vashti  is  a  type  of  Israel.  She  was  the  lawful 
wife  of  Ahasuerus,  but  was  banished  and  another 
took  her  place.  Because  of  Israel's  rejection  of 
Messiah  she  is  now  in  the  dispersion,  the  lawful  un- 
divorced  wife  of  God  the  Father  Almighty  (Isa.  54 : 
5  and  Jer.  3:  12-14).  But  she  will  return  from  her 
wanderings,  and  be  restored  to  Divine  favor  and 
honor  (Rom.  1 1 :  26 ;  Rev.  7  :  4-8).  In  commenting 
upon  Esther  2:1,  where  it  is  said  "  When  the 
wrath  of  King  Ahasuerus  was  appeased,  he  remem- 
bered Vashti,"  Jehoshaphet  Ben  Ezra,  in  his  book 
entitled  "  The  Coming  of  Messiah  in  Glory  and  Ma- 
jesty," says :  "  The  time  shall  come  when  King 
Ahasuerns  shall  remember  Vhasti  and  what  she  hath 
done,  and  what  was  decreed  against  her.  The  time 
shall  come  in  which  his  heart  shall  move  towards  his 
former  spouse,  whom  he  put  away  from  him  for 
righteous  reasons  ;  when  taking  pity  upon  her  hard- 
ships and  softened  by  her  tears ;  and  satisfied  with 
her  great  and  most  sorrowful  repentance,  he  shall 
call  her  once  more  to  himself,  and  shall  reinstate  her 
in  all  her  honors,  and  clothe  her  with  greater  glory 
than  she  was  possessed  of  before  her  misfortunes." 

Esther  is  a  type  of  the  Church.  In  this  dispen- 
sation of  the  Spirit,  God  is  taking  from  among  the 
nations  a  people  that  were  no  people  (See  Hosea 
2  :  23,  and  Rom.  9  :  25,  26),  as  a  bride  for  His  Son 
(See  Hosea  2 :  19,  20,  and  2  Cor.  11:2).  And  so 
the  rejection  of  Israel  has  turned  out  to  our  account 
who  are  called  from  among  the  Gentiles  (See  Rom. 
II  :  11-15)- 


174  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Raman  is  a  type  of  the  anti-Christ.  The  anti- 
Christ  is  Daniel's  "  Little  Horn  "  (Dan.  7  : 8),  Paul's 
"  Man  of  Sin  "  (2  Thess.  2  :  3),  and  John's  "  Beast " 
with  the  wounded  head  (Rev.  13:3).  He  is  a 
usurper,  and  like  Haman,  will  come  to  his  end  sudden- 
ly. (See  Dan  7  :'  1 1.  ;  Phil.  2  :  8,  and  Rev.  19 :  20,  21.) 

Haman's  ten  sons  are  types  of  the  "  ten  kings  " 
mentioned  in  Dan.  7:24,  and  Rev.  17:  12-18. 

The  "  Great  feast "  King  Ahasuerus  made  for 
Esther,  chapter  2:9,  17,  1 8,  most  beautifully  typ- 
ifies the  "  Marriage  Supper  of  the  Lamb."  (See 
Matt.  25  :  1-12,  and  Rev.  19:7,  8,  17.) 

King  Ahasuerus  shared  equally  his  honors  and 
possessions  with  Esther.  See  chapter  5  :  3.  This  is 
just  what  the  King  of  Kings  will  do  with  His  Bride 
— the  Church,  in  His  coming  kingdom  and  glory. 
See  Luke  22:29,  30,  and  Rev.  3:21.  And  so,  in 
falling  "from  heaven -to  earth,"  as  Ewald  puts  it,  it 
is  plain  to  be  seen  by  one  who  has  spiritual  vision, 
that  we  bring  much  of  heaven  with  us,  for  there  is 
much  of  that  which  is  heavenly  in  the  Book  of 
Esther,  to  be  seen  by  the  heavenly  minded. 

The  Highest  Critics  bear  no  direct  testimony  to 
the  authorship  and  authenticity  of  this  Book.  But 
since  it  belongs  to  the  Writings  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  says  were  "  Given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  we 
know  that  it  was  God-given ;  "  For  no  prophecy 
ever  came  by  the  will  of  men  ;  but  men  spake  from 
God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  May  God 
smite  with  the  might  of  his  power  the  destructive 
criticisms  of  the  Higher  Critics.  Amen ! 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  175 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

WORK  OF  THE   CRITICS   COMPARED. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  in  these  days  about  "  Mod- 
ern Biblical  Study,"  "  Wonderful  Progress,"  "Ad- 
vanced Thought,"  "  Marvelous  Discoveries,"  etc., 
etc.,  as  applied  to  biblical  study  and  knowledge. 
These  expressions,  oft  repeated  as  they  are,  impress 
the  young  and  ignorant  with  the  twofold  idea  that 
we  have  mastered  well-nigh  all  the  difficulties  be- 
longing to  such  study,  and  that  preceding  genera- 
tions knew  little  or  nothing,  critically  and  scientif- 
ically, of  the  Word  of  God. 

Some  of  the  theories  and  methods  of  some  of  the 
Higher  Critics  are  indeed  "  wonderful  "  and  "  marvel- 
ous," and  quite  altogether  "  modern,"  and  may  also 
be  characterized  as  ingenious,  unique,  and  startling, 
and  also  very  presumptuous  and  exceedingly  auda- 
cious. 

Advancement  has  been  made  along  right  lines, 
for  which  all  lovers  of  God's  Word  are  truly  thank- 
ful. 

But  what  is  said  about  Moses  not  being  the  writer 
of  the  Pentateuch,  about  these  writings  being  largely 
made  up  of  myths,  legends,  traditions,  fables,  and 
sagas  borrowed  from  the  surrounding  nations ;  and 
about  their  historic,  chronologic,  and  scientific  in- 
accuracies and  unreliability  is  only  "  threshing  old 
straw." 


176  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Many  of  the  criticisms,  if  not  all,  were  made  by 
Aben  Ezra  in  1168,  by  Carlstadt  in  1541,  by  An- 
dreas Maes  in  1573,  by  Hobbs  in  1651,  by  Spinoza 
in  1670,  by  Jean  Astruc  in  1753,  and  by  Eichhorn 
in  1779. 

There  is  not  a  single  objection  raised  by  modern 
Higher  Criticism  against  the  integrity  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  that  was  not  urged  by  Vol- 
taire one  hundred  and  thirty  years  ago,  and  may  be 
found  in  the  sixth  volume  of  the  Didot  edition  of 
his  works.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Paine's  Age 
of  Reason,  believed  by  many  to  be  the  most  damag- 
ing book  to  Christianity  ever  written. 

More  than  one  hundred  years  ago  certain  learned 
Jewish  rabbis,  who  knew  their  language,  tradi- 
tions, and  Book  far  better  than  most  modern 
Higher  Critics,  wrote  quite  a  number  of  letters  to 
Voltaire,  in  which  all  his  objections  were  most  satis- 
factorily met  and  his  questions  convincingly  an- 
swered. These  letters  are  in  book  form,  and  bear 
the  title  The  Jew's  Letters  to  Voltaire.  So  com- 
pletely and  overwhelmingly  did  these  rabbis  route 
Voltaire  that  we  need  nothing  more  with  which  to 
meet  the  objections  raised  against  the  integrity  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  by  the  modern  critic. 

I  wish  to  quote  from  three  classes  of  critics,  viz. : 
Infidel,  Rationalist,  and  Supernaturalist,  as  to  the 
authorship,  character,  and  reliability  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, that  the  reader  may  see  how  nearly  they 
agree  in  these  matters, 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  177 

The  infidels  are  Voltaire,  Paine,  and  Ingersoll. 
The  rationalists  are  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Dillmann, 
Cornill,  Robertson  Smith,  Prof.  Cheyne,  B.  W. 
Bacon,  and  Prof.  Ladd.*  The  supernaturalists 
are  Riehm,  Schultz,  Driver,  Briggs,  and  Harper. 

The  infidels  are,  of  course,  bitterly  antagonistic 
to  the  Bible  and  Christianity. 

The  rationalists  deny  a  supernatural  element  in 
the  Bible,  reducing  it  to  the  level  of  other  so-called 
sacred  writings  at  the  last  analysis,  thus  making  it  a 
merely  human  production,  and  yet  claim  to  believe 
in  Christianity. 

The  supernaturalists  claim — some  of  them — that 
the  Bible  is  God's  Word.  Some  of  them  insist  that 
it  contains  God's  Word.  They  all  believe  that 
parts  of  the  Bible  are  somehow  inspired  of  God,  but 
they  seem  not  to  know  how,  and  are  not  at  all 
agreed  as  to  what  parts.  They  all  profess  to  be 
Orthodox  Christians,  and  are  so  recognized  in  their 
denominations. 

First,  then,  as  to  the  Authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

Voltaire  said :  "  It  is  said,  even  in  their  books, 
that  this  Pentateuch  was  not  known  until  the  reign 
of  their  king,  Josiah,  thirty-six  years  before  the  de- 
struction and  captivity  of  Jerusalem,  and  then  they 
only  possessed  a  single  copy  which  the  priest,  Hil- 


*  Classifying  Profs.  Smith,  Cheyne,  and  Ladd  and  Dr.  Bacon  among 
rationalists,  is  only  stating  my  opinion  of  the  views  of  these  gentlemen,  after 
reading  carefully  their  writings  on  biblical  criticism. 


178  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

kiah,  found  at  the  bottom  of  a  strong  box  while 
counting  money."  "  The  book  found  under  Josiah 
was  unknown  until  the  return  from  the  Babylonian 
captivity."  (Phil.  Dictionary,  Art.  "  Moses,"  1762.) 

"Almost  all  men  well  acquainted  with  antiquity 
agree  that  this  book  (the  Pentateuch)  was  not  issued 
among  the  Jews  until  the  time  of  Ezra.  *  *  * 
The  greatest  proof  to  some  learned  men  that  Ezra 
edited  all  the  Jewish  books  is  that  they  appear  to 
be  in  the  same  style."  (God  and  Men,  1769,  Chap. 
19.) 

"  Those  best  acquainted  with  antiquity  think 
that  these  books  were  written  more  than  seven 
hundred  years  after  Moses."  (Dialogue  16.) 

"  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch was  written  by  some  Levites  eight  hundred 
and  twenty-seven  years  after  Moses  (according  to 
the  Vulgate),  in  the  time  of  Josiah."  (Bible  Ex- 
plained, 1777,  "Deut") 

"  Toland  assures  us  that  it  is  plain  that  all  these 
books  were  written  along  time  after  (the  events)  by 
some  lazy  priest,  *  *  *  and  that  we  ought  not 
to  believe  the  Pentateuch  any  more  than  the  Sibyl- 
line books  which  were  regarded  sacred  during  cen- 
turies." (Bible  Explained,  1777,  Exodus,  Chap.  19.) 

"  I  am  asked  who  is  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ?  One  may  as  well  ask  me  who  wrote  the 
Four  Sons  of  Aymon,  Robert  the  Devil,  or  the  His- 
tory of  the  Enchanter,  Merlin."  (Important  Exami- 
nation, 1767,  Chap.  4.) 


VS.    THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  179 

"  The    Pentateuch    could    not  be   from    Moses." 
(Ex.  of  Lord  Bolingbroke.) 

Paine  said  :  "All  the  contradictions  in  time,  place, 
and  circumstances  that  abound  in  the  books  ascribed 
to  Moses  prove  to  a  demonstration  that  those  books 
could  not  be  written  by  Moses,  nor  in  the  time  of 
Moses."  (P.  89.)  *"The  style  and  manner  in 
which  those  books  are  written  give  no  room  to  be- 
lieve, or  even  to  suppose,  that  they  were  written  by 
Moses."  (P.  80.)  "  From  the  historical  and  chron- 
ological evidence  contained  in  these  books,  Moses 
was  not,  because  he  could  not  be,  the  writer  of 
them."  (P.  82.)  "My  intention  is  to  show  that 
those  books  are  spurious,  and  that  Moses  is  not  the 
author  of  them ;  and  still  further,  that  they  were 
not  written  in  the  time  of  Moses,  nor  till  several 
hundred  years  afterwards."  (P.  80.)  "  It  cannot  be 
admitted  as  a  fact  in  those  books  that  it  is  Moses 
who  speaks,  without  rendering  Moses  truly  ridicu- 
lous and  absurd."  (P.  80.)  "  Moses  is  not  the 
author  of  the  books  ascribed  to  him."  (P.  87.)  "The 
Book  of  Genesis,  though  it  is  placed  first  in  the 
Bible  and  ascribed  to  Moses,  has  been  manufactured 
by  some  unknown  person,  after  the  Book  of  Chroni- 
cles was  written,  which  was  not  until  at  least  eight 
hundred  and  sixty  years  after  the  time  of  Moses." 
(P.  99.)  "  Though  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  know 
identically  who  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy  was,  it  is 


*  The  quotations  from  Paine  are  all  taken  from  The  Theological  Works  of 
Thomas  Paine,  Boston,  J.  P.  Mendum,  1854. 


180  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

not  difficult  to  discover  him  professionally,  that  he 
was  some  Jewish  priest  who  lived,  as  I  shall  show 
in  the  course  of  this  work,  at  least  three  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after  the  time  of  Moses."  (P.  83.) 
"  In  Deuteronomy  the  style  and  manner  of  writing 
marks  more  evidently  than  the  former  books  that 
Moses  is  not  the  writer."  (P.  81.)  "  If  Moses  was 
not  the  author  (of  Numbers),  the  books  are  without 
authority."  (P.  81.)  "Those  who  have  supersti- 
tiously  boasted  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Bible,  and 
particularly  the  books  ascribed  to  Moses,  have  done 
it  without  examination  and  without  any  authority 
than  that  of  one  credulous  man  telling  it  to  an- 
other ;  for,  so  far  as  historical  and  chronological 
evidence  applies,  the  very  first  book  in  the  Bible  is 
not  so  ancient  as  the  book  of  Homer  by  more  than 
three  hundred  years,  and  is  about  the  same  age  with 
^Esop's  Fables."  (P.  92.) 

Ingersoll  says  in  his  last  lecture  About  the  Holy 
Bible,  New  York,  C.  P.  Farrell,  1894:  "  Many  cen- 
turies after  Moses,  the  leader,  was  dead — many  cen- 
turies after  all  his  followers  had  passed  away — the 
Pentateuch  was  written,  the  work  of  many  writers, 
and  to  give  it  force  and  authority  it  was  claimed 
that  Moses  was  its  author.  We  now  know  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  written  by  Moses."  (P.  8.)  "It 
is  now  not  only  admitted  by  intelligent  and  honest 
theologians  that  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  but  they  all  admit  that  no  one  knows 
who  the  authors  were,  or  who  wrote  any  of  these 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  181 

books,  or  a  chapter,  or  a  line.  We  know  that  the 
books  were  not  written  in  the  same  generation  ; 
that  they  were  not  written  by  any  one  person." 
(P.  9.) 

Kuenen  says :  "  Utterly  unhistorical,  and  there- 
fore cannot  have  been  committed  to  writing  until 
centuries  after  Moses  and  Joshua."  (The  Hexateuch, 
Wicksteed's  translation,  p.  42.)  "  The  representa- 
tions of  the  Hexateuch,  as  they  stand,  can  only  be 
regarded  as  the  products  of  ages  long  after  Moses 
and  Joshua."  (P.  48.)  "  Most  of  them  (the  elements 
of  the  Hexateuch)  are  remote  from  the  age  of 
Moses  and  Joshua."  (P.  48.) 

Wellhausen  says :  "  Somewhat  later  (B.  c.  850- 
750),  perhaps  the  legends  about  the  patriarchs  and 
primitive  times,  the  origin  of  which  cannot  be  as- 
signed to  a  very  early  date."  "  Even  the  Jehovistic 
narratives  about  the  patriarchs  belong  to  the  time 
when  Israel  had  already  become  a  powerful  king- 
dom." (Hist,  of  Israel  and  Judah,  p.  71.) 

Dillmann  says  :  "  The  style  of  Deuteronomy  im- 
plies a  long  development  of  the  art  of  public  oratory, 
and  is  not  of  a  character  to  belong  to  the  first  age 
of  Israelitish  literature."  (P.  611.)  He  held  that 
P.  was  written  B.  C.  900,  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah ; 
and  that  E.  was  written  in  the  Northern  Kingdom 
in  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century  before  Christ ; 
while  J.  was  written  in  the  Southern  Kingdom  not 
earlier  than  the  middle  of  eighth  century  B.  c. 

Cornill  says :  "  The  old  historical  books  and  the 


182  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Pentateuch  exclude  each  the  other.  Either  the 
representation  of  the  historical  books  is  true,  and 
then  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  the  foundation  of 
Mosaism  and  of  the  religion  of  Israel ;  or,  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  laws  are  from  Moses,  and  then  the  rep- 
resentation of  the  historical  books  cannot  be  true." 
(Intro,  to  O.  T.,  p.  272.) 

Cheyne  says :  "  Deuteronomy  was  composed  *  *  * 
by  no  possibility  later  than  the  eighteenth  year  of 
the  reign  of  Josiah.  *  *  *  Hilkiah  may  possibly  have 
had  to  do  with  the  composition  of  the  book." 
(Founders  of  O.  T.  Crit.,  pp.  271-272.) 

Robertson  Smith  says :  "  The  Pentateuch,  then, 
is  a  history  incorporating  at  least  three  bodies  of 
laws.  The  history  does  not  profess  to  be  written 
by  Moses."  (The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  p.  323.)  "  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Penta- 
teuchal  history  was  written  in  the  .land  of  Canaan, 
and  if  it  is  all  by  one  hand  it  was  not  composed 
before  the  period  of  the  Kings."  (P.  325.)  "  The 
Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  was  written  after 
the  time  of  Moses,  nay,  after  that  of  Joshua.  We 
cannot  venture  to  assert  that  the  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  out  of  older  sources  of  various  date 
took  place  before  the  time  of  the  Kings."  (P.  331.) 
"  The  narrative  in  its  present  form  cannot  be  older 
than  the  youngest  body  of  laws,  and  therefore  must 
have  been  completed  some  time  between  the  age 
of  Ezekiel  and  that  of  Ezra."  (P.  388.)  "  No  part 
of  Deuteronomy  1-30  can  be  older  than  the  seventh 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  183 

century  B.  c.,  while  *  *  *  some  parts  may  be 
a  good  deal  later  than  Josiah's  Reformation  in 
B.  c.  621."  (P.  394.)  "  But  the  mass  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  after  Deuteronomy  1-30  has  been  set  on 
one  side,  is  made  up  of  extracts  from  several  sources 
pieced  together  in  a  complicated  way."  (P.  396.) 
"  The  priestly  document  or  group  *  *  *  after  Eze- 
kiel,  as  the  historic-legal  argument  requires." 
(P.  408.) 

Prof.  Ladd  says :  "  Undoubtedly  the  first  six 
books  of  the  Bible  are  a  composite  literary  struc- 
ture, the  sources  and  materials  of  which  came  from 
different  times  and  authors ;  they  could  not,  there- 
fore, have  been  all  the  work  of  Moses"  (What  is 
the  Bible?  p.  312.)  "The  venerable  tradition, 
more  than  two  thousand  years  old,  which  asserts 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Pentateuch, 
stands  opposed  to  the  almost  unanimous  verdict  of 
modern  biblical  study.  The  tradition,  although  it 
is  so  ancient,  has  absolutely  no  valid  claims  that 
justify  its  uncritical  acceptance."  (P.  302.)  "  The 
whole  world  of  scholars  has  abandoned  the  ancient 
tradition  that  the  Pentateuch,  in  any  such  form  as 
we  now  have  it,  was  the  work  of  Moses."  (P.  300.) 

Dr.  B.  W.  Bacon  says :  "  There  are  practically 
none  to  hold  to  the  main  contention  of  the  tradi- 
tionalists, an  origin  within  the  Mosaic  age  for  any 
considerable  part  of  the  narrative  material."  (The 
Hexateuch,  New  York  Independent,  May  3,  1894.) 

Schultz  says  :  "  For  the  latest  writers  of  the  Pen- 


184  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

tateuch  it  was  an  accepted  fact  that  all  the  religious 
knowledge  and  all  the  sacred  institutions  of  Israel 
that  were  in  actual  existence  down  to  the  time  of 
Ezra  had  been  received  from  God  by  Moses.  *  *  * 
This  view  is  not  that  of  Israel's  early  reminiscences, 
and  no  historical  inquirer  of  the  present  day  will  ad- 
vocate it."  (O.  T.  Theo.,  p.  132.) 

Dr.  Driver  says :  "  Even  though  it  were  clear 
that  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
written  by  Moses,  it  would  be  difficult  to  sustain 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy."  (Intro- 
duction to  the  Lit.  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  77.) 
"  The  Mosaic  authorship  of  Genesis  to  Numbers 
cannot  be  sustained."  *  *  *  "  The  historical  books 
afford  a  strong  presumption  that  the  law  of  Deuter- 
onomy did  not  originate  until  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  monarchy."  (P.  80.)  "  Deuteronomy 
does  not  claim  to  be  written  by  Moses."  (P.  83.) 
"  Neither  (J.  and  E.}  is  later  than  about  B.  C.  750." 
(P.  1 16.)  "  They  resemble  the  best  parts  of  Judges 
and  Samuel  (much  of  which  cannot  be  greatly  later 
than  David's  own  time).  And  there  are  certain 
passages  in  which  language  is  used  implying  that 
the  period  of  the  Exodus  is  in  the  past,  and  that 
Israel  is  established  in  Canaan."  (P.  117.)  "  It  (the 
P.  document)  is  itself  the  latest  of  the  sources  of 
which  the  Hexateuch  is  composed,  and  belongs  ap- 
proximately to  the  period  of  the  Babylonian  captiv- 
ity." (P.  129.)  "  The  completed  Priest's  Code  is  the 
work  of  the  age  subsequent  to  Ezekiel."  (P.  135.) 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  185 

Prof.  Briggs  says :  "  Moses  did  not  write  the 
Pentateuch."  (Defense  of  Prof.  Briggs.  New 
York:  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  pp.  120,  127,  128.) 
"  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  result  of  the 
science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not 
write  the  Pentateuch."  (Inaugural,  p.  33.) 

Pres.  Harper  says :  "  The  present  literary  form 
of  this  revelation,  Gen.  i-n,  dates  from  about  that 
period,"  B.  c.  900.  (Biblical  World,  vol.  4,  p.  415.) 
"  Should  criticism  prove  that  the  larger  portion 
of  the  Mosaic  system,  as  we  have  it  to-day,  arose 
in  a  post-Mosaic  period,  it  would  not  in  any  way 
contradict  the  representations  made  in  the  New 
Testament."  (P. 414.)  "At  a  later  period — howmuch 
later  is  and  always  will  be  a  matter  of  uncertainty — 
an  editor  *  *  *  undertakes  to  join  these  various  rep- 
resentations— Gen.  i-n — together."  (P.  412.) 

Second.    The   Character  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Voltaire  said :  "  Is  it  not  plain  that  Genesis 
was  taken  from  the  ancient  fables  of  their  (the 
Jews')  neighbors  ?  "  "  The  Fable  of  Moses,"  "The 
Fable  of  the  Pentateuch."  (Ex.  of  Lord  Boling- 
broke.) 

Paine  said  :  "  Take  away  from  Genesis  the  belief 
that  Moses  was  its  author,  on  which  only  the 
strange  belief  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  has  stood, 
and  there  remains  nothing  in  Genesis  but  an  anony- 
mous book  of  stories,  fables,  and  traditionary  or  in- 
vented absurdities,  or  of  downright  lies."  (Age  of 
Reason,  p.  86.) 


186  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Ingersoll  says :  "  We  also  know  that  the  account 
of  the  Tower  of  Babel  is  an  ignorant  and  childish 
fable."  (P.  24.) 

Kuenen  says :  "  We  can  no  longer  accept  his 
statements  as  true  (the  Flood).  We  cannot  give  any 
high  position  to  the  legend  itself."  (The  Bible  for 
Learners,  p.  76.)  "  Legend  plays  a  greater  part 
than  history  itself  in  the  accounts  we  possess  of 
him  "  (Moses).  (P.  242.)  "The  sagas  about  the 
patriarchs,  the  exodus,  and  the  conquest."  (P. 
226.) 

Wellhausen  says :  "  It  dresses  itself  up  in  archa- 
istic  fashion."  (History  of  Israel,  p.  41.)  "The 
historical  tradition  which  has  reached  us  relating  to 
the  period  of  the  judges  and  of  the  kings  of  Israel  is 
the  main  source,  though  only  of  course  in  an  indi- 
rect way,  of  our  knowledge  of  Mosaism."  (P.  18.) 
"  The  Jews  had  no  historical  life,  and  therefore 
painted  the  old  time  according  to  their  ideas,  and 
framed  the  time  to  come  according  to  their  wishes." 
(P-  213.) 

Dillmann  says:  "When  he  (the  Redactor  of  the 
Hexateuch)  had  no  historical  accounts  he  sketches 
freely  an  imaginary  picture."  (Numb.,  Josh.,  and 
Deut.,  p.  650.)  "  The  oral  saga  within  which  falls 
all  the  history  given  by  P.  He  knew  and  used  the 
North  Israelite  book  of  sagas."  (P.  655.) 

Prof.  Cheyne  says :  "  And  neither  by  him  (Prof. 
Sayce),  nor  by  anyone  else,  has  it  yet  been  made 
probable  that  there  was  a  historical  individual 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  187 

among  the  ancestors  of  the  Israelites  called  Abram,* 
or  that  the  picture  of  the  times  of  Abraham  in  Gen- 
esis is  (to  adopt  Prof.  Ramsay's  phrase)  a  funda- 
mentally true  tale,  except,  indeed,  so  far  as  it  reflects 
the  times  of  the  narrators."  (Founders  of  O.  T. 
Criticism,  p.  239.) 

Robertson  Smith  says  :  "  He  (P.)  chooses  a  canvas 
as  large  as  that  of  the  pre-priestly  Torah,  and  throws 
the  exposition  of  the  system  of  Israel's  sacred  ordi- 
nances into  the  form  of  history  from  the  Creation 
to  the  complete  settlement  in  Canaan.  This  whole 
history  his  plan  compels  him  to  idealize  or  allego- 
rize, and  he  does  so  boldly."  (O.  T.  in  Jewish 
Church.) 

Prof.  Ladd  says :  "  The  traditions  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis."  (What  is  the  Bible?  p.  71.) 
"  The  knowledge  of  these  facts,  too,  can  be  shown 
to  have  come  to  the  author  of  Genesis  solely  in  the 
ordinary  way  of  tradition  or  of  written  documents." 
(P.  194.)  "  The  picture  of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  or 
place  where  life  began,  is  also  a  traditional  one." 

*  Prof.  Meinhold,  at  the  last  Bonn  Vacation  course  of  lectures,  claimed  that 
the  biblical  accounts  of  the  patriarchs  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  entirely 
unhistorical,  and  that  the  whole  patriarchal  history  of  Israel  is  a  myth,  and  that 
this  view  is  the  necessary  conclusion  of  the  documentary  theory  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  theological  faculty  at  Bonn  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  eight 
other  Protestant  faculties  in  Prussia  asking  if  these  opinions  were  contrary  to  the 
confessional  status  of  the  Church.  With  the  sole  exception  of  Griefswald  the 
faculties  answered  that  such  views  were  permissible  within  the  evangelical 
Church,  and  that  to  maintain  them  was  not  in  conflict  with  the  confessional. 

Of  course,  if  Abraham  is  a  myth,  Jesus  Christ  is  a  myth  also,  for  he  is  the  "  Son 
of  Abraham,"  and  the  "Covenant  of  Grace"  stands  for  nothing,  and  we  are 
without  hope,  "and  of  all  men  most  miserable."  Being  but  myths  ourselves,  for 
believers  '  are  the  children  of  Abraham  "  (Gal.  3.  7),  it  is  a  matter  of  no  special 
importance.  Can  anything  be  more  destructive?  The  infidels  never  said  any- 
thing worse  against  the  truth  of  the  Bible — never ! 

13 


188  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

(P.  197.)  "  The  remarkable  similarity  of  some  of 
these  traditions  (Creation,  the  Fall,  the  Flood)  to 
the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  has  suggested  a  com- 
mon origin  for  both."  (P.  68.) 

Schultz  says :  "  We  can  do  nothing  more  than 
draw  inferences  from  the  national  legends  we  have, 
and  from  fragments  of  myth  and  of  ancient  customs 
that  remain."  (O.  T.  Theo.,  p.  73.) 

Riehm  says :  u  In  the  earliest  history  we  find  our- 
selves on  the  ground  of  sacred  saga.  Either  this 
history  must  have  been  given  to  the  narrators  by 
revelation  or  by  historical  archives  in  addition  to  the 
popular  saga.  Neither  is  the  fact.  Thus  it  is 
a  priori  probable  that  these  narratives  were  taken 
from  the  popular  saga.  Their  peculiar  character 
makes  on  the  unprejudiced  mind  the  clear  impres- 
sion that  they  are  not  history,  but  saga."  (Int.  to 
O.  T.,  p.  340.) 

Prof.  Driver  says :  "  None  of  the  historians  of  the 
Bible  claim  supernatural  enlightenment  for  the  ma- 
terials of  their  narrative.  It  is  reasonable,  therefore, 
to  conclude  that  these  were  derived  by  them  from 
such  human  sources  as  were  at  the  disposal  of  each 
particular  writer — in  some  cases  from  a  writer's  own 
personal  knowledge,  in  others  from  earlier  docu- 
mentary sources ;  in  others,  especially  in  those  re- 
lating to  a  distant  past,  from  popular  tradition." 
(Int.  to  Lit.  O.  T.,  Preface  XII.) 

Pres.  Harper  says  :  "  These  stories "  (Bible  Ac- 
counts of  the  Origin  of  Man)  "  are  not  history,  for 


VS.    THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  189 

the  times  are  prehistoric  times.  They  are  the  He- 
brew version  (purged  and  purified)  of  the  best 
thoughts  of  humanity  in  that  earliest  period  when 
man  stood  alone  with  nature  and  with  God.  It  is 
sacrilege  to  call  them  history.  They  are  stories. 
*  *  *  Let  us  be  careful  not  to  credit  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  kindled  the  fire  of  inspiration,  the 
ignorance  and  superstition  of  those  in  whose  hearts 
the  fire  was  not  kindled."  (Biblical  World,  vol. 
3,  p.  108.)  "  He  takes  the  stories"  (Bible  Account 
of  Paradise  and  the  First  Sin)  "  common  to  all 
ancient  nations.  *  *  *  He  does  what  the 
prophet  always  does — he  idealizes."  (P.  188.)  "It 
seems  probable  that  the  biblical  story  of  the  sons  of 
God  and  the  daughters  of  men  has  a  common  origin 
with  outside  stories.  *  *  *  The  story  is  some- 
thing our  writer  finds  at  hand.  As  he  finds  it,  it  is 
a  legend.  He  purifies  it."  (P.  188.)  "  Some  of  its 
illustrations — Heb.,  chapter  xi — could  be  shown  to 
be  drawn  from  religious  stories  commonly  accepted 
as  historical  narratives,  but  in  reality  generically  or 
ideally  true,  rather  than  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
term  historically."  (Vol.  3,  p.  164.) 

Third.    Reliability. 

Voltaire  said  :  "  Their  chronology  is  always  erro- 
neous." "  The  innumerable  mistakes  of  geography, 
of  chronology,  and  the  contradictions  found  in  the 
Pentateuch."  (Ex.  of  Lord  Bolingbroke.) 

Paine  said:  "  I  am  not  undertaking  to  point  out 
all  the  contradictions  in  time,  place,  and  circum- 


THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


stances  that  abound  in  the  books  ascribed  to  Moses." 
(P.  89,  A.  of  R.) 

Ingersoll  says  :  "  Genesis  contradicts  itself.  There 
are  two  accounts  of  the  Flood."  (About  the  Holy 
Bible,  p.  23.)  "  We  know  that  the  story  of  the 
Flood  is  much  older  than  the  book  of  Genesis,  and 
we  know,  besides,  that  it  is  not  true."  (P.  24.)  "  A 
dreary  and  detailed  statement  (Genesis)  of  things 
that  never  happened."  (P.  25.) 

Kuenen  says  :  "  As  a  rule  they  concern  them- 
selves very  little  with  the  question  whether  what 
they  narrate  really  happened  so  or  not.  This  is 
why  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  so  full  of 
legends."  (Bible  for  Learners,  p.  5.)  In  his 
Hexateuch  he  says  :  "  It  is  in  P.  that  the  abso- 
lutely unhistorical  representation  of  Israel's  settle- 
ment in  the  trans-Jordanic  district  and  of  the  divi- 
sion of  Canaan  by  lot  is  most  fully  developed." 

"  He  (P.)  shows  little  care  for  the  reality,  and  sub- 
ordinates historical  probability  to  considerations  of 
quite  another  order."  (P.  173.)  "  The  representa- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  times  and  of  the  settlement  in 
Canaan  which  the  Hexateuch  gives  us  is,  as  a 
whole,  contradicted  by  the  veritable  history."  (P. 
192.)  "  The  exodus,  the  wandering,  the  passage  of 
the  Jordan,  and  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  as  they 
are  described  in  the  Hexateuch  are  simply  impos- 
sible." (P.  43.)  "The  representation  of  all  this 
(the  exodus)  in  the  Hexateuch  is  absurd."  (P. 
46.) 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  191 

Wellhausen  says :  "  The  historical  sphere  created 
out  of  its  own  premises  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in 
actual  history."  (P.  41,  Hist,  of  Israel.)  "It  is 
full  of  historical  fiction."  (P.  170.)  "All  confidence 
in  it  is  lost."  (P.  334.)  "  Its  incredible  insipidity ; 
it  is  hard  to  give  an  idea  of  its  pedantry."  (P.  331.) 
"  Indescribable  pedantry  of  language  accompanies 
the  intellectual  pedantry."  (P.  336.)  Thus  this 
Higher  Critic  speaks  of  the  first  four  chapters  of 
Genesis. 

Dillmann  says  :  "  Noah's  ark,  course  of  the  Flood, 
tabernacle  (after  the  manner  of  a  movable  holy  tent, 
richly  furnished),  the  order  of  the  camp  and  march 
(in  geometrical  divisions),  the  determination  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  tribes  by  lot  under  Joshua,  the 
members  of  each  tribe  in  Moses'  day,  the  quantity 
of  manna  that  fell,  etc.  They  are  not  to  be  taken 
historically."  (Numb.,  Josh.,  and  Deut,  p.  650.) 

Cornill,  in  his  Introduction  to  Old  Testament, 
says  (p.  56) :  "  P.  contains  contradictions  and  incon- 
ceivable things."  (P.  272.)  "  All  historical  value  must 
be  denied  to  him."  "  Anarratorwhose  untrustworthi- 
ness  is  proved."  (P.  63.)  "  The  tabernacle  *  *  * 
is  merely  a  carrying  back  of  the  Deuteronomic  cen- 
tral sanctuary ;  that  is,  the  temple  of  Solomon  into 
the  time  of  Moses,  after  it  had  been  made  movable 
through  a  waste  of  wit  not  to  be  despised." 

Robertson  Smith  says  :  "  The  conclusion  to  which 
modern  critics  have  been  led  is  that  the  whole 
Priest's  Code,  alike  in  those  parts  which  are  for- 


192  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

mally  legislative  and  in  those  which  a  superficial 
reading  might  regard  as  purely  historical,  is  to  be 
taken  as  essentially  a  law-book,  and  must  not  be 
used  as  an  independent  source  for  the  actual  history 
of  the  Mosaic  times."  (O.  T.  in  Jewish  Church, 

P-  3870 

Prof.  Cheyne  says :  "  The  historical  fact  of  the 
Hittite  conquest  has  come  down  to  the  writer  sym- 
bolized as  P.  in  a  meager  and  scarcely  recognizable 
form,  and  has  become  the  setting  of  a  tradition  of 
uncertain  date."  (Founders  of  O.  T.  Criticism, 
p.  240.) 

Prof.  Ladd  says :  "  The  same  primitive  and  un- 
scientific character  belongs  to  those  classifications 
of  the  animals  and  descriptions  of  natural  phenom- 
ena which  are  found  in  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  in 
the  narrative  of  the  Deluge  and  in  the  Mosaic  law." 
(P.  134,  What  is  the  Bible?)  "The  biblical 
writers  show  no  signs  of  having  been  inspired  so  as 
to  be  errorless  when  treating  of  physical  matters  ; 
they  make  the  mistakes  incident  to  their  times." 
"  There  is  not  an  atom  of  evidence  to  show  that 
they  had  any  other  information  concerning  the 
truths  of  nature  than  such  as  belonged  to  all  their 
contemporaries."  (P.  135.)  "Nowhere  else  in  the 
entire  Bible  do  we  find  narratives  the  genuine  his- 
torical character  of  which  is  more  doubtful,  and 
the  moral  and  religious  value  obvious,  than  those  of 
the  fourth,  fifth,  and  early  part  of  the  sixth  chapters 
of  Genesis."  (P.  198.) 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  193 

Dr.  Bacon  says  :  "  Many,  doubtless  will  continue 
to  cling  to  the  tradition  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch,  as  men  long  clung  to  the  Da- 
vidic  authorship  of  the  Psalms.  But  those  who 
have  witnessed  the  quiet  superseding  of  this  now 
obsolete  idea  by  that  of  historical  criticism,  present- 
ing the  Psalmbook  as  a  conglomerate  which  unites 
in  one  collection  fruits  of  the  religious  thought  and 
feeling  of  Israel  during  many  centuries,  have  no 
excuse  for  regarding  the  exactly  analogous  treat- 
ment of  the  heterogeneous  elements  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  as  necessarily  subversive  of  religious  faith." 
(Gen.  of  Gen.,  p.  64.) 

Riehm  says  :  "  Not  only  did  they  (the  authors  of 
the  Pentateuch)  compose  the  speeches  of  the  actors, 
as  freely  as  Thucydides  or  Livy,  but  they  also  gave 
themselves  to  more  or  less  free  reconstruction  of  the 
popular  tradition."  (Intro,  to  O.  T.,  vol.  I,  p.  339.) 

Schultz  says :  "  The  work  of  a  priest  who,  unde- 
terred by  the  existence  of  sanctuaries  in  Israel,  has 
presented  us  with  his  ideal  of  sacred  customs  in  the 
form  of  a  history."  (O.  T.  Theo.,  p.  73.) 

Driver  says:  "  It  is  difficult  to  escape  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  representation  of  P.  includes  elements 
not,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  historical." 
(Intro.  O.  T.,  p.  120.)  "  It  is  probable  that,  being  a 
priest  himself,  he  recorded  traditions,  at  least  to  a 
certain  extent,  in  the  form  in  which  they  were  cur- 
rent in  priestly  circles."  (P.  121.)  "The  partition 
of  the  land  being  conceived  as  ideally  effected  by 


194  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Joshua,  its  complete  distribution  and  occupation  by 
the  tribes  are  treated  as  his  work,  and  as  accom- 
plished in  his  lifetime."  (P.  108.) 

Prof.  Briggs  says  :  "  These  human  features  render 
it  improbable  that  the  Bible  should  be  free  from 
errors  in  its  human  setting.  The  psychology  may 
be  crude,  the  methods  of  reasoning  sometimes  in- 
exact, the  rhetoric  occasionally  extravagant,  the  lan- 
guage of  some  of  the  writers  rude,  their  concep- 
tions provincial,  their  knowledge  of  the  earth  defect- 
ive. But  how  could  it  be  otherwise  if  the  divine 
revelation  was  to  come  through  such  men  as  the 
ancient  times  were  capable  of  producing  ?  Holy 
Scripture  does  not  claim  inerrancy  in  its  human  set- 
ting, and  it  does  not  in  fact  possess  it."  (The  Bible, 
the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  p.  108.)  "  I  have 
maintained  that  there  are  errors  in  the  texts  which 
we  have  and  in  the  best  texts  which  we  can  get  by 
the  science  of  textual  criticism,  and  that  it  is  im- 
probable that  the  original  texts,  if  we  could  discover 
them,  would  be  much  different  from  those  we  have 
in  that  regard.  "(The  Defense  of  Prof.  Briggs  Be- 
fore the  Presb.  of  New  York,  p.  105.)  "  I  shall  ven- 
ture to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  there  are 
errors  in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has  been  able 
to  explain  away ;  and  the  theory  that  they  were 
not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer  assumption.  *  *  * 
If  such  errors  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it 
is  already  destroyed  for  historians."  (Inaugural, 
P-  350 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  195 

Pres.  Harper  says :  "  The  fact  universally  ac- 
cepted that  in  the  present  manuscripts  and  versions 
of  our  Bible  there  are  errors  and  inaccuracies." 
(Biblical  World,  vol.  4,  p.  415.)  "One  may  well 
doubt  whether  it  was  really  the  purpose  of  the 
writer  to  express  the  thought  which  has  been  com- 
monly taken  from  his  words."  (Concerning  the 
Flood,  p.  29.) 

"  It  is  not  historical,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word.  The  names  are  ideal  names  gathered  from 
the  stories  known  to  all  the  world.  The  number  of 
names,  ten,  is  ideal.  The  number  of  years  each 
patriarch  lived  is  not  known."  (Vol.  3,  p.  334.) 
"  Do  we  expect  of  the  early  times  a  perfect  moral- 
ity? or  a  morality  judged  by  the  standard  of  our 
times  ?  Then  why  expect  a  perfect  historiography  ?  " 
(Vol.  4,  p.  199.)  "  Why  then  should  we  look  for 
the  highest  form  of  literary  composition  ?  We 
know  that  it  was  a  child  age."  (P.  200.)  "  Is  it 
literal  history  ?  (the  Deluge).  No.  Nor  is  the 
Book  of  Job  history,  nor  the  Books  of  Chronicles, 
nor  the  Books  of  Kings,  nor  the  Books  of  Samuel." 
(P.  120.) 

"  It  has  been  seen  that  the  representations  made 
concerning  the  Garden  of  Eden,  its  situation  and 
its  rivers,  are  ideal  representations  ;  that  at  no  pe- 
riod in  the  history  of  investigation  has  it  been  pos- 
sible to  determine  the  details;  that  the  elements  in 
the  representation  are  found  in  the  same  forms  in 
other  ancient  accounts  ;  that  these  do  not  accord 


196  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

strictly  with  geographical  science.  It  has  been  seen 
that  the  great  ages  assigned  to  the  patriarchs  are 
not  borne  out  by  history  and  are  contrary  to  the 
teachings  of  physiological  science ;  that  a  table  of 
nations  is  given  which  purports  to  be  ethnological 
and  to  include  all  the  descendants  of  Noah,  in 
which,  however,  many  omissions  are  to  be  found — 
a  table  which,  indeed,  omits  certain  great  races  alto- 
gether, and  which,  therefore,  cannot  be  called  a  sci- 
entific table.  These  are  a  few  of  many  important 
variations  between  what  seem  to  be  the  implications 
of  the  narratives  and  the  results  of  science.  *  *  * 
If  the  Holy  Spirit  undertook  to  reveal  a  scientific 
knowledge  of  things  to  men  in  those  days,  the  rev- 
elation made  was  of  a  strange  and  peculiar  charac- 
ter. Really  it  is  nothing  short  of  blasphemy  to 
attribute  these  things  to  the  Holy  Spirit."  (P.  276.) 
"  If  we  deny  it,  we  certainly  assume  a  grave  respon- 
sibility in  attributing  to  the  Holy  Spirit  that  which 
is  dishonoring  and  degrading."  (P.  275.) 

"  If  there  is  an  analysis  the  sacred  record  can  no 
longer  be  claimed  to  present  a  perfectly  accurate  ac- 
count of  the  early  times,  for  conflicting  accounts 
stand  side  by  side,  changes  have  been  arbitrarily 
introduced  into  the  text,  insertions  and  omissions 
have  been  made,  the  material  cannot  be  called  in  a 
strict  sense  historical. 

"  If  there  is  an  analysis  there  are  two,  though 
perhaps  not  contradictory,  conceptions  of  God,  one 
of  which  seems  to  border  closely  on  polytheism. 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  197 

How  is  it  possible  for  so  low  an  idea  of  God  to  have 
been  incorporated  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  ? 

"  If  all  this  is  true  the  character  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment material,  whether  viewed  (a)  from  an  archaeo- 
logical, (b]  from  an  historical,  and  especially  (<;)  from 
a  religious  point  of  view,'  must  be  estimated  some- 
what differently  from  the  method  commonly  in 
vogue.  It  is  composed  of  different  stories  of  the 
same  event,  joined  together  by  an  editor  who  did 
not  have  insight  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  see  that 
he  was  all  the  time  committing  grave  blunders,  and 
yet  felt  no  hesitancy  in  altering  the  originals  with 
which  he  was  working.  It  is  not  historical  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  that  word."  (Hebraica,  Oct., 
1888,  pp.  68-70.) 

We  see  by  these  criticisms  that  with  a  very  few 
unimportant  qualifications,  variations,  and  reserva- 
tions there  is  striking  agreement  between  these 
three  classes  of  critics  upon  the  three  points  under 
consideration,  viz.:  First — That  Moses  was  not  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  it  was  not  writ- 
ten or  edited  until  from  four  hundred  to  one  thou- 
sand years  after  his  death  by  persons  wholly  un- 
known. Second — That  the  Pentateuch,  especially 
Genesis,  is  made  up  largely  of  myths,  legends,  fables, 
sagas,  and  traditions ;  and,  Third — That,  historical- 
ly, chronologically,  and  scientifically,  these  writings 
are  untrustworthy. 

All  this  means  :  First — If  Moses  did  not  write  the 
Pentateuch,  its  own  claims  as  to  authorship  are  false, 


198  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

the  Old  Testament  prophets  did  not  tell  the  truth 
in  their  testimony  upon  this  subject,  and  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  were  wholly  ignorant  of  this  matter  or 
knowingly  condoned  a  falsehood  and  perpetuated  a 
fraud.*  Second — That  the  Pentateuch  is  not  God's 
word  at  all  in  any  real  sense  ;  but,  being  made  up  of 
myths,  fables,  and  legends,  borrowed  or  stolen  from 
the  heathen  about  them,  and  the  traditions  of  men, 
is  not  binding  upon  the  consciences  and  lives  of 
men.  Third — A  denial  of  inspiration.  If  this  record 
is  as  unreliable  as  these  gentlemen  agree  it  is,  it  is  a 
sin  before  high  heaven  to  say  it  is  inspired  of  God, 
or  that  it  is  God's  Word. 

Here  is  what  Thomas  Paine,  Christianity's  great 
enemy,  says  upon  this  point : 

"Combining,  then,  all  the  foregoing  circumstances 
together  respecting  the  antiquity  and  authenticity 
of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  a  conclusion  will  naturally 
follow  therefrom.  Those  circumstances  are  :  First — 
That  certain  parts  of  the  book  cannot  possibly  have 
been  written  by  Moses,  and  the  other  parts  carry  no 
evidence  of  having  been  written  by  him.  Second — 


*  Herman  L.  Strack  says  :  "  As  regards  passages  from  the  New  Testament,  we 
must  protest  against  their  use  for  the  twofold  reason,  that  if  they  prove  the  Mo- 
saic authorship  all  other  proofs  are  superfluous  and  are  a  derogation  from  the 
authority  of  our  Lord,  and  that  the  use  of  such  proofs  removes  the  whole  ques- 
tion from  the  historical  and  critical  domain."  (Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia.) 

Kuenen  says :  "  The  exegesis  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  cannot 
stand  before  the  tribunal  of  science.  We  must  either  cast  aside  as  worthless  our 
dearly  bought  scientific  method,  or  must  forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  author- 
ity of  the  New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the  Old.  Without 
hesitation  we  choose  the  latter  alternative."  (Prophets  and  Prophecy  in 
Israel,  p.  487.) 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  199 

The  universal  silence  of  all  the  following  books  of 
the  Bible,  for  about  a  thousand  years,  upon  the  ex- 
traordinary things  spoken  of  in  Genesis,  such  as  the 
creation  of  the  world  in  six  days,  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  the  tree  of  knowledge,  the  tree  of  life,  the 
story  of  Eve  and  the  serpent,  the  fall  of  man,  and 
his  being  turned  out  of  this  fine  garden,  together 
with  Noah's  flood  and  the  Tower  of  Babel.  Third 
— The  silence  of  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  upon 
even  the  name  of  Moses,  from  the  Book  of  Joshua 
until  the  second  Book  of  Kings,  which  was  not 
written  until  after  the  captivity,  a  period  of  about  a 
thousand  years.  Strange  that  a  man  who  is  pro- 
claimed as  the  historian  of  Creation,  the  privy  coun- 
selor and  confidant  of  the  Almighty,  the  legislator 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  founder  of  its  religion 
— strange,  I  say,  that  even  the  name  of  such  a  man 
should  not  find  a  place  in  their  books  for  a  thousand 
years  if  they  knew  or  believed  anything  about  him, 
or  the  books  he  is  said  to  have  written."  "Fourth 
— The  opinion  of  some  of  the  most  celebrated 
of  the  Jewish  commentators,  that  Moses  is  not 
the  author  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  founded  on 
the  reasons  given  for  that  opinion.  Fifth — The 
opinion  of  the  early  Christian  writers  and  of  the 
great  champion  of  Jewish  literature,  Maimonides, 
that  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  not  a  book  of  facts. 
Sixth — The  silence  imposed  by  all  the  Jewish 
rabbis,  and  by  Maimonides  himself,  upon  the  Jewish 
nation,  not  to  speak  of  anything  they  happen  to 


200  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

know  or  discover  respecting  the  cosmogony  (or  cre- 
ation of  the  world)  in  the  Book  of  Genesis. 

"  From  these  circumstances  the  following  circum- 
stances offer : 

"  First — That  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  not  a  book 
of  facts.  Second — That  as  no  mention  is  made 
throughout  the  Bible  of  any  of  the  extraordinary 
things  related  in  Genesis,  that  it  has  not  been  writ- 
ten till  after  the  other  books  were  written,  and  put 
as  a  preface  to  the  Bible.  Everyone  knows  that  a 
preface  to  a  book,  though  it  stands  first,  is  the  last 
written.  Third — That  the  silence  imposed  by  all 
the  Jewish  rabbis  and  by  Maimonides  upon  the  Jew- 
ish nation  to  keep  silence  upon  everything  relating 
to  their  cosmogony  evinces  a  secret  they  are  not 
willing  should  be  known.  The  secret,  therefore,  ex- 
plains itself  to  be  that  when  the  Jews  were  in  cap- 
tivity in  Babylon  and  Persia  they  became  acquainted 
with  the  cosmogony  of  the  Persians,  as  registered  in 
the  Zend-Avesta  of  Zoroaster,  the  Persian  lawgiver, 
which  after  their  return  from  captivity  they  manu- 
factured and  modeled  as  their  own,  and  antedated  it 
by  giving  to  it  the  name  of  Moses.  The  case  admits 
of  no  other  explanation.  From  all  which  it  appears 
that  the  Book  of  Genesis,  instead  of  being  the  oldest 
book  in  the  world,  as  the  Bishop  calls  it,  has  been 
the  last  written  book  of  the  Bible,  and  that  the  cos- 
mogony it  contains  has  been  manufactured."  (Re- 
ply to  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  pp.  256,  257.) 

Who  can  say,  without  quibbling,  that  such  criti- 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  201 

cism  is  not  destructive  of  the  very  foundations  of 
the  Christian's  faith  and  hope  ? 

Voltaire  and  the  Deists  of  his  time  and  Paine 
used  these  criticisms  for  this  very  purpose.  Paine 
said  :  "  But  if  it  should  be  found  that  the  books  as- 
cribed to  Moses,  Joshua,  and  Samuel  were  not  writ- 
ten by  Moses,  Joshua,  and  Samuel,  every  part  of 
the  authority  and  authenticity  of  these  books  is  gone 
at  once  ;  for  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  forged  or 
invented  testimony."  (Age  of  Reason,  p.  79.) 

Ingersoll  uses  the  same  criticisms  with  which  to 
point  the  shafts  he  hurls  at  Christianity. 

The  Deists  of  Europe  in  the  last  century,  of 
whom  Lord  Bolingbroke  was  the  moving  spirit  and 
Voltaire  the  spokesman,  in  their  brilliant  and  per- 
sistent warfare  upon  Christianity  relied  chiefly  upon 
these  criticisms  to  destroy  faith  in  the  Bible  as  the 
Word  of  God  and  bring  the  Christian  religion  into 
contempt,  as  infidels  have  ever  done.  As  a  result 
France  plunged  into  infidelity  and  atheism,  and  the 
French  Revolution,  with  its  "  Reign  of  Terror," 
followed. 

In  1864  the  late  Earl  of  Beaconsfield  (Disraeli),  in 
addressing  the  diocesan  convention  at  Oxford,  Eng- 
land, said  : 

"  The  opinions  of  the  new  school  are  paralyzing 
the  efforts  of  many  who  ought  to  be  our  friends. 
Will  these  opinions  succeed  ?  My  opinion  is  that 
they  will  fail.  *  *  *  Having  examined  all  their 
writings,  I  believe,  without  exception,  whether  they 


THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


consist  of  fascinating  eloquence,  diversified  learning, 
or  picturesque  sensibility  exercised  by  our  honored 
preacher  in  this  university  (Dean  Stanley),  and 
whom  to  know  is  to  admire  and  regard;  or  whether 
you  find  them  in  the  cruder  conclusions  of  prelates 
who  appear  to  have  commenced  their  theological 
studies  after  they  have  grasped  the  crosier  (Bishop 
Colenso) ;  or  whether  I  read  the  lucubrations  of  neb- 
ulous professors  (Frederick  Maurice),  who,  if  they 
could  persuade  the  public  to  read  their  writings, 
would  go  far  to  realize  that  eternal  punishment 
which  they  deny ;  or,  lastly,  whether  it  be  the  pro- 
vincial arrogance  and  precipitate  self-complacency 
which  flash  and  fire  in  an  essay  or  review,  I  find  the 
common  characteristic  of  their  writings  is  this — 
that  their  learning  is  always  secondhand.  *  *  * 
When  I  examine  the  writings  of  their  masters,  the 
great  scholars  of  Germany,  I  find  that  in  their  labors 
also  there  is  nothing  new.  All  that  inexorable 
logic,  irresistible  rhetoric,  bewildering  wit  could 
avail  to  popularize  these  views  was  set  in  motion  to 
impress  the  new  learning  on  the  minds  of  the  two 
leading  nations  of  Europe  (by  the  English  and 
French  deistical  writers  of  the  last  century),  and  they 
produced  their  effect  (in  the  French  Revolution). 
When  the  turbulence  was  over,  when  the  waters  had 
subsided,  the  sacred  heights  of  Sinai  and  Calvary 
were  again  revealed  ;  and  amidst  the  wreck  of 
thrones,  extinct  nations,  and  abolished  laws  man- 
kind, tried  by  so  many  sorrows,  purified  by  so  much 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  203 

suffering,  and  wise  with  such  unprecedented  expe- 
rience, bowed  again  before  the  divine  truths  that 
Omnipotence  had  intrusted  to  the  custody  and  pro- 
mulgation of  a  chosen  people." 

Without  doubt  England  would  have  gone  as  did 
France  but  for  the  sweeping,  wonderful,  and  glori- 
ous revivals  under  the  lead  of  George  Whitefield, 
John  and  Charles  Wesley,  and  their  colaborers, 
growing  out  of  the  so-called  "  Oxford  Movement." 

We  all  know  that  irreparable  harm  has  been  done 
the  Christian  religion  by  Paine,  Ingersoll,  their  asso- 
ciates and  followers.  We  also  know  how  they  used 
the  same  criticisms  with  which  to  poison  the  shafts 
hurled  at  Christianity. 

The  unspiritual  condition  of  the  churches  (and  it 
is  lamentable  when  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  Refor- 
mation and  its  legitimate  results)  and  the  alarmingly 
prevalent  skepticism,  infidelity,  and  atheism  among 
the  masses  of  the  people  in  Germany,  Switzerland, 
and  Holland  is,  without  doubt,  almost  wholly  attrib- 
utable to  the  advocacy  of  these  criticisms  by  a  large 
majority  of  the  prominent  pastors  and  theological 
professors  in  those  lands. 

The  same  condition  of  affairs  is  measurably  true 
in  England,  Scotland,  New  England,  and  in  every 
community  where  this  criticism  is  believed  by  any 
very  considerable  number  of  people  and  openly  ad- 
vocated. Show  me  a  church  the  pastor  of  which 
believes  and  preaches  these  criticisms,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  which  pretty  generally  accept  them,  and 
14 


204  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

I  will  show  you  a  church  that  is  worldly,  formal,  and 
unaggressive  in  spiritual  work. 
•  In  view  of  the  above  facts,  is  it  possible  that  any- 
one  can  believe  that  these  criticisms  will  promote 
the  spiritual  interests  of  the  Church  and  be  for  the 
glory  of  God  if  advocated  by  such  splendid  and 
noble  gentlemen  as  Drs.  Driver,  Briggs,  and  Har- 
per? We  know  that  it  will  not,  because  we  know  it 
cannot.  Will  not  their  high  professions,  unsullied 
characters,  and  commanding  influence  make  this 
teaching  all  the  more  dangerous?  We  are  very 
sure  it  will.  Already  it  has  made  its  way  where  in- 
fidel or  rationalist  could  not  possibly  carry  it,  and 
is,  therefore,  working  all  the  greater  mischief. 

These  criticisms  are  taught  in  many  theological 
seminaries  and  pulpits  of  orthodox  churches  of  our 
land.  They  are  being  pushed  to  the  fore  in  many 
of  our  Church  papers  and  magazines.  They  are  in 
the  course  of  Bible  study  prepared  by  the  American 
Institute  of  Sacred  Literature,  which  course  has 
been  recommended  to  the  Christian  Endeavor  soci- 
eties of  the  world  by  their  honored  President,  Dr. 
F.  E.  Clark.  They  may  be  found  in  many  of  the 
lesson  helps  used  in  Sunday  schools  all  over  the 
land.  They  find  a  place  in  the  teaching  at  the 
Chautauqua  assemblies  almost  everywhere.  Breth- 
ren, claiming  to  believe  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God,  are  pushing  these  criticisms  everywhere  they 
can  with  a  zeal  deserving  a  better  cause. 

It  is  a  very  common  saying  of  the  Supernatural- 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  205 

ists  that  though  there  are  numerous  errors,  discrep- 
ancies, and  contradictions  in  the  Bible,  these  in  no 
sense  imperil  or  jeopardize  the  doctrinal  teachings 
of  the  book.  Of  course,  to  superficial  thinkers  this 
saying  will  appear  specious  ;  but  to  thoughtful,  hon- 
est, and  reverent  souls  fallacious  and  dangerous. 

If  the  Bible  contains  historic,  scientific,  and  chron- 
ological errors,  on  what  ground  can  it  be  consist- 
ently argued  that  it  is  infallible  in  its  doctrinal  de- 
liverances? If  Jesus  Christ  and  the  inspired  apostles 
were  not  competent  and  trustworthy  authorities  in 
matters  of  authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  writings, 
by  what  parity  of  reasoning  can  one  consistently 
appeal  to  their  testimony  in  matters  of  doctrine? 
The  fact  is,  men  will  not  accept  the  doctrinal  teach- 
ings of  the  book  as  infallible  if  they  are  led  to  be- 
lieve that  it  is  untrustworthy  in  other  matters. 
Personally,  I  am  confronted  by  this  fact  almost 
every  day  in  my  work.  It  is  not  an  infrequent  thing 
for  me  to  meet  young  people  in  their  "  teens,"  the 
children  of  Christians,  who  put  aside  the  claims  of 
the  Bible  with  a  flippancy  that  is  almost  paralyzing 
and  a  sang-froid  that  is  characteristic  of  a  pro- 
fessional infidel  by  saying :  "  Professors  Briggs  and 
Harper  and  the  best  scholars  in  the  Churches  ac- 
knowledge that  the  Bible  is  full  of  errors  and  con- 
tradictions. Why,  then,  should  I  accept  it  as  true  ?  " 
I  find  this  condition  of  affairs  alarmingly  upon  the 
increase. 

The  learned  Bishop  Ryle  recently  said  : 


206  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

"  It  is  vain  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  a 
general  miasma  of  unbelief  seems  to  fill  the  air  in 
this  day.  Our  Lord's  words  are  verified,  'When 
the  Son  of  man  cometh,  shall  he  find  faith  on  the 
earth?''  Archbishop  Tait  said,  in  dying  words: 
"  The  age  is  becoming  skeptical."  Archbishop 
Thompson  said  :  "  The  infidelity  of  the  day  is  not 
only  aggressive,  it  is  omnipresent.  It  is  found  in 
the  club  and  in  the  drawing  room.  It  works  in 
magazines,  newspapers,  and  novels."  A  great 
Northern  divine  told  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  last  June:  "Agnosticism  and 
materialism  have  become  the  fashion.  The  great 
reviews  and  magazines  are  full  of  it.  Young  misses 
fresh  from  school,  and  who  are  not  sound  on  the 
multiplication  table,  will  lisp  to  you  that  they  are 
not  sound  in  the  faith.  Young  boys  will  tell  you 
that  they  go  in  for  agnosticism,  a  word  of  which 
they  hardly  know  the  meaning  and  which  they 
would  find  it  hard  to  spell." 

These  critics  are  sowing  to  the  wind ;  the  Church 
will  reap  the  whirlwind.  If  the  Church  accepts 
their  teachings  and  conclusions,  then  shall  she  be 
swept  from  her  anchorage  to  drift  with  the  whirling 
currents  of  agnosticism  and  skepticism,  or  be  dashed 
upon  the  rocks  of  apostasy.  May  God  help  his 
people  to  cry  mightily  to  him  for  deliverance  from 
this  imminent  peril ! 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  207 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
SCHOLARSHIP. 

Dr.  B.  W.  Bacon,  in  an  article  in  a  recent  issue  of 
The  Independent,  says: 

Prof.  Briggs's  challenge  in  The  Presbyterian  Review  for  April, 
1887,  to  name  one  solitary  professor  in  this  department  in  all  the 
Protestant  universities  of  the  continent  of  Europe  who  would  con- 
sent on  this  "question  "  to  be  classed  with  Prof.  Green,  was  reit- 
erated by  Prof.  George  T.  Ladd,  D.D.,  of  Yale,  in  his  "What  is 
the  Bible?"  and  by  myself  in  "The  Genesis  of  Genesis."  It  has  been 
made  far  more  explicit  in  Prof.  Briggs's  "  Bible.Church,  and  Reason," 
by  the  enumeration  seriatim,  in  an  appendix,  entitled,  "  Who  are  the 
Higher  Critics  ?  "  of  eighteen  foremost  Protestant  universities  of  Ger- 
many, with  their  forty-eight  chairs  of  Old  Testament  science  ;  six- 
teen similar  institutions  of  the  rest  of  the  Continent,  with  their 
thirty-three  professors  of  the  subject ;  seven  of  the  principal  univer- 
sities and  theological  schools  of  Great  Britain,  with  their  twelve  pro- 
fessorships ;  fourteen  of  the  corresponding  institutions  of  America, 
with  their  eighteen  professors  and  thirty-five  independent  scholars 
of  note,  all  of  whom  in  their  writings,  as  cited  by  title,  present  a 
"solid  phalanx  against  the  traditional  theory." 

To  make  this  challenge  still  more  explicit  Prof.  Briggs  enumerates 
the  exceptions,  of  which  there  are  none,  to  his  knowledge,  on  the 
Continent  : 

"  The  professors  of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  Edinburgh  are  united 
in  their  support  of  the  four  documents.  There  is  not  an  Old  Testa- 
ment professor  of  standing  in  Great  Britain  who  takes  ariy  other 
view,  except  the  venerable  Principal  Douglas,  of  Glasgow,  who  has 
recently  resigned  his  chair.  The  majority  of  Old  Testament  pro- 
fessors in  America  are  of  the  same  opinion.  The  notable  exceptions 
are  Profs.  W.  H.  Green,  Howard  Osgood,  and  E.  C.  Bissell." 

Letters  of  inquiry  dispatched  the  past  week  to  the  most  eminent 
professors  in  this  department  at  Yale,  Andover,  Johns  Hopkins,  and 
Chicago,  have  added,  indeed,  quite  a  number  of  names  to  Prof. 


208  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Briggs's  list  of  one  hundred  and  forty-six  ;  but  as  to  the  three  ex- 
ceptions, now  reduced  by  the  lamented  death  of  Prof.  Bissell  to  two 
they  have  produced  only  expressions  of  wonder  as  to  where  Prof. 
Green  would  look  for  opposing  authority,  and  of  ignorance  of  its 
existence.  Until  The  Independent  shall  have  taken  a  census  of  au- 
thorities on  "the  Pentateuch  question"  the  opponents  of  the  docu- 
mentary theory,  besides  Profs.  Green  and  Osgood  and  the  very  few 
who,  with  Principal  Cave,  in  England,  and  Prof.  W.  K.  Beecher,  of 
Auburn,  N.  Y.,  try  to  combine  a  documentary  theory  of  Genesis,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  with  Mosaic  authorship,  must  be  classed  as  "great 
unknowns." 

Prof.  Briggs  says : 

The  critical  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  is  the  result  of  more  than  a 
century  of  profound  study  of  the  documents  by  the  greatest  critics  of 
the  age.  There  has  been  a  steady  advance  until  the  present  posi- 
tion of  agreement  has  been  reached,  in  which  Jew  and  Christian, 
Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Rationalist  and  Evangelical  schol- 
ars, Reformed  and  Lutheran,  Presbyterian  and  Episcopalian,  Unita- 
rian, Methodist,  and  Baptist  all  concur.  The  analysis  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch into  several  distinct  original  documents  is  a  purely  literary  ques- 
tion, in  which  no  article  of  faith  is  involved.  Whoever,  in  these  times, 
in  the  discussion  of  the  literary  phenomena  of  the  Hexateuch,  appeals 
to  the  ignorance  and  prejudice  of  the  multitude,  as  if  there  were  any 
peril  to  the  faith  in  these  processes  of  higher  criticism,  risks  his  rep- 
utation for  scholarship  by  so  doing.  There  are  no  Hebrew  pro- 
fessors on  the  continent  of  Europe,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  deny  the 
literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  into  four  great  documents  (J,  E, 
P,  and  D).  The  professors  of  Hebrew  in  the  universities  of  Ox- 
ford, Cambridge,  and  Edinburgh,  and  tutors  in  a  large  number  of 
theological  colleges,  hold  the  same  opinion.  A  very  considerable 
number  of  Hebrew  professors  of  America  are  in  accord  with  them. 
There  are,  indeed,  a  few  professional  scholars  who  hold  to  the  tradi- 
tional opinion,  but  these  are  in  a  hopeless  minority.  I  doubt 
whether  there  is  any  question  of  scholarship  whatever  in  which  there 
is  greater  agreement  among  scholars  than  in  this  question  of  the  lit- 
erary analysis  of  the  Hexateuch. 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  209 

These  are  bold  declarations  indeed.  I  think  them 
audacious  assumptions.  One  hundred  and  forty-six 
persons  and  "  a  few  professional  scholars  who  hold 
to  the  traditional  opinion  "  are  all  the  scholars  in 
Christendom  who  are  entitled  to  have  an  opinion 
and  competent  to  speak  on  these  matters !  It  re- 
minds me  of  the  gentleman  who  said,  "  There  is  but 
one  Greek  scholar  in  this  country,  and  modesty  for- 
bids my  naming  him."  Of  the  one  hundred  and 
forty-six  persons  named,  Prof.  Lampe  has  shown 
that  thirty-four  of  them  do  not  belong  to  the  classi- 
fication made  by  Prof.  Briggs ;  that  five  are  Unita- 
rians, and  seventeen  are  unorthodox  Jews.  Of 
course,  if  this  be  "a  purely  literary  question,"  other 
things  being  equal,  the  testimony  of  a  Unitarian,  a 
rationalist,  a  deist,  or  an  infidel  is  of  as  much  value 
as  that  of  a  devout  Christian  scholar ;  but,  while  it 
is  true  there  is  a  literary  phase  to  this  question,  it 
is  transcended  immeasurably  by  other  considera- 
tions. 

Prof.  Lampe  names  forty-five  scholars  as  favoring 
the  traditional  view.  This  number  can  be  increased 
into  the  hundreds,  if  not  thousands.  There  are 
great  numbers  of  pastors,  and  not  a  few  laymen,  who 
are  seldom  if  ever  heard  of  outside  their  limited 
fields  of  labor — quiet,  unassuming,  studious  men — 
who  keep  abreast  of  all  the  work  of  specialists  in  all 
departments  of  textual,  historical,  and  analytical 
criticisms  of  the  Bible ;  who  read  the  Hebrew, 
Greek,  and  other  ancient  languages,  and  who  are 


210  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

familiar  with  all  that  has  been  accomplished  by  the 
philologist  and  archaeologist,  who  are  just  as  compe- 
tent to  testify  upon  these  matters  as  the  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-six  gentlemen  mentioned  by  Prof. 
Briggs. 

To  read  the  bold  claims  of  these  professors  one 
would  think,  if  they  did  not  know  better,  that  bib- 
lical learning  would  die  with  them.  And  yet  they 
might  all  die  this  day,  and  before  sundown  their 
chairs  could  all  be  filled  a  dozen  times  over  by  "  tra- 
ditionalists "  as  learned  as  they  from  among  the  pas- 
tors of  churches  in  America. 

It  is  a  fact  that  all  orthodox  Jews  are  "  traditional- 
ists." Are  none  of  them  competent  to  speak  upon 
the  Hexateuchal  question  ? 

I  have  no  doubt  but  that  there  is  as  much  real 
learning  among  the  clergy  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  as  can  be  found  in  all  Protestantism.  An 
"Encyclical,"  recently  issued  by  Pope  Leo  XIII, 
contains  the  following  deliverance : 

The  Sacred  Books  have  been  written  in  their  entirety  and  in  all 
their  parts  at  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  so  far  is  it 
from  being  possible  for  an  error  to  occur  in  what  has  been  di- 
vinely inspired,  that  of  itself  inspiration  not  only  excludes  all  error, 
but  excludes  and  rejects  it  with  the  same  necessity  that  renders  it 
impossible  for  God,  the  Supreme  Truth,  to  be  the  author  of  any 
error  whatsoever. 

This  officially  commits  the  whole  Roman  Catholic 
Church  to  a  position  of  antagonism  to  the  Higher 
Criticism. 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  211 

In  accordance  with  the  authority  conferred  upon 
them  by  a  Council  of  the  Bishops  of  the  American 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  held  in  New  York  last 
October,  a  committee  of  bishops,  consisting  of  John 
Williams,  Bishop  of  Connecticut  and  presiding 
bishop ;  William  Creswell  Doane,  Bishop  of  Al- 
bany ;  F.  D.  Huntington,  Bishop  of  Central  New 
York ;  William  E.  McLaren,  Bishop  of  Chicago ; 
George  F.  Seymour,  Bishop  of  Springfield ;  and 
Henry  C.  Potter,  Bishop  of  New  York,  have  issued 
a  pastoral  letter  to  the  clergy  and  laity  throughout 
the  country. 

It  is  an  unusual  and  extraordinary  occasion  that 
calls  forth  an  address  on  the  part  of  the  American 
episcopate  to  the  Church  at  large,  and  the  reasons 
for  the  present  letter  are  thus  set  forth  in  the  intro- 
ductory page: 

We,  your  bishops,  having  been  assembled  to  take  order,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  have  availed  ourselves  of  the  opportunity  to  meet  in  council  to 
consider  our  duty  in  view  of  certain  novelties  of  opinion  and  expres- 
sion, which  have  seemed  to  us  to  be  subversive  of  the  fundamental 
verities  of  Christ's  religion.  It  has  come  to  our  knowledge  that  the 
minds  of  many  of  the  faithful  clergy  and  laity  are  disturbed  and  dis- 
tressed by  these  things  ;  and  we  desire  to  comfort  them  by  the  firm 
assurance  that  the  episcopate  of  the  Church,  to  which,  in  a  peculiar 
manner,  the  deposit  of  faith  has  been  intrusted,  is  not  unfaithful  to 
that  sacred  charge,  but  will  guard  and  keep  it  with  all  diligence,  as 
men  who  shall  hereafter  give  account  to  God. 

The  address  treats  of  "  The  Incarnation  of  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ "  and  "  The  Inspiration  of  the 


212  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Holy  Scriptures."     In  concluding  the  discussion  of 
the  latter  the  bishops  thus  speak : 

The  minute  and  reverent  study  of  the  divine  Word  must  always 
be  necessary  and  will  always  be  profitable.  The  time  will  never 
come  when  men  will  not  be  obliged  to  combine  the  separate  por- 
tions of  God's  Word,  to  study  the  fashions  in  which  they  were  given, 
and  to  consider  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  both  in  and 
through  the  sacred  writers  ;  and  the  time  will  never  come  when  the 
honest  student  of  God's  Word  will  not  require  and  will  not  welcome 
every  critical  appliance  which  the  providence  of  God  may  furnish,  to 
cast  new  light  on  the  sacred  page.  It  would  be  faithless  to  think 
that  the  Christian  religion  has  anything  to  fear  from  the  critical  study 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

We  devoutly  thank  God  for  the  light  and  truth  which  have  come 
to  us  through  the  earnest  labors  of  devout  critics  of  the  sacred  text. 
What  we  deprecate  and  rebuke  is  the  irreverent  rashness  and  unsci- 
entific method  of  many  professed  critics,  and  the  presumptuous 
superciliousness  with  which  they  vaunt  erroneous  theories  of  the  day 
as  established  results  of  criticism.  From  this  fault  professedly 
Christian  critics  are  not  always  exempt ;  and  by  Christian  critics  we 
mean  those  who,  both  by  theory  and  practice,  recognize  the  inspira- 
tion of  God  as  the  controlling  element  of  Holy  Scripture. 

After  asserting  that  no  discovery  of  modern  re- 
search, positively  ascertained,  is  of  a  character  to 
unsettle  a  Christian's  faith  in  any  particular,  the 
letter  continues : 

Any  instruction  or  any  study  which  makes  any  part  of  the  Bible 
less  authoritative  than  it  really  is,  which  weakens  faith  in  its  inspira- 
tion, which  tends  to  eliminate  Christ  from  the  utterances  of  the 
prophets,  or  which  leads  a  man  to  think  of  miracles  with  a  half-sup- 
pressed skepticism,  is  a  pernicious  instruction  and  a  pernicious  study. 

This  "  pastoral  letter  "  commits  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  also  against  the  criticism  con- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  213 

demned  in  these  pages.  I  know  there  are  some 
scholars  in  this  branch  of  the  Church  of  God  who 
are  advocating  destructive  methods  of  biblical  criti- 
cism, hence  this  "pastoral."  But  the  authorities 
condemn  their  views  and  work,  and  the  scholarship 
of  this  denomination  of  Christians  is  in  sympathy 
with  these  condemnatory  views. 

We  all  know  how  emphatically  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  through  its  last  three  General  Assemblies, 
has  declared  in  favor  of  the  traditional  views  as 
against  those  advocated  by  Prof.  Briggs.  After 
Prof.  Briggs  and  the  very  few  scholars  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  who  are  one  with  him  in  this  matter, 
is  Prof.  W.  Henry  Green,  the  only  scholar  belonging 
to  this  communion  ? 

Not  a  single  Orthodox.  Church  has  approved  and 
adopted  the  conclusions  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
Every  Orthodox  Church  is  committed  to  the  tradi- 
tional views.  And  yet  these  few  men,  assuming  to 
possess  well-nigh  all  the  learning  in  Christendom, 
are  demanding  of  the  Church  of  God  that  she  shall 
abandon  views  that  are  consistent  and  made  precious 
by  hallowed  associations  ;  that  were  baptized  by  the 
tears  and  blood  of  thousands  "  of  whom  the  world 
was  not  worthy  ;  "  views  that  were  the  result  of  the 
labors  of  the  Church's  greatest  scholars  for  twenty 
centuries ;  and  for  what  ?  Assumptions,  supposi- 
tions, conjectures,  and  no  end  of  unprovable  opin- 
ions. 

These  gentlemen  are  creating  a  literature  wholly 


214  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

their  own  ;  and,  with  a  zeal  worthy  of  a  better 
cause,  are  pushing  it  into  the  theological  seminaries 
and  the  libraries  of  pastors  all  over  the  civilized 
world.  They  are  making  a  lexicon,  so  that  their 
own  definitions  may  become  current,  and  are  trans- 
lating the  Bible  to  suit  their  own  private  interpreta- 
tions. The  immediate  evil  accomplished  by  them  is 
not  great,  since  their  audience  is  small.  Their 
writings  are  too  dry,  hair-splitting,  and  voluminous 
ever  to  become  popular;  but  the  ultimate  evil  may 
be  very  great,  since  the  young  men  they  are  im- 
pressing with  their  views  are  to  go  abroad  in  the 
Church  and  world  and  sow  broadcast  the  seeds  of 
error;  and,  as  rationalism  and  infidelity  were  the 
natural  and  inevitable  harvest  of  the  sowing  of  Baur 
and  the  Tubingen  school  in  the  Protestant  Churches 
of  continental  Europe,  so  will  it  be  in  Great  Britain 
and  America  fifty  years  hence  if  they  succeed  in  ac- 
complishing their  purposes. 

These  critics  tell  us  that  their  criticisms  will  not 
disturb  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible;  that  they  are 
only  clearing  away  the  rubbish  that  we  may  see 
these  doctrines  in  a  clearer  and  better  light.  Prof. 
Emil  Schurer,  of  Kiel,  insists  that  the  doctrines  of 
the  Bible  are  in  no  danger ;  and  yet,  in  the  second 
paragraph  from  the  one  in  which  this  view  is  ex- 
pressed, he  tells  of  a  theological  revolution  already 
accomplished  by  the  Higher  Critics. 

We  know  how  extensive  and  influential  were  the 
influences  of  the  Higher  Criticism  in  unspiritualizing 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  215 

the  Protestant  Churches  of  Germany,  Switzerland, 
and  Holland.  Wellhausen  himself  tells  us  how  he 
left  the  theological  faculty  at  Greifswald  of  his  own 
accord  in  the  consciousness  of  no  longer  standing 
quite  on  the  basis  of  the  Evangelical  Church  and 
Protestantism.  Hengstenberg  has  well  said  :  "  The 
denial  of  the  Pentateuch  has  its  origin  in  the  prone- 
ness  to  Naturalism,  which  has  its  root  in  estrange- 
ment from  God." 

But,  will  the  work  of  these  critics  prevail  ?  We 
know  it  will  not. 

The  inspired  Psalmist  said :  "  Thou  hast  magni- 
fied thy  Word  above  all  thy  name."  We  see  this 
in  its  literary  and  poetic  beauty;  in  its  historic, 
scientific,  and  biographical  accuracy ;  in  its  ethical 
and  philosophical  profundity ;  in  its  indestructible- 
ness  and  elevating  and  transforming  power ;  and  in 
its  prophetic  arid  eschatological  uniqueness.  The 
Written  Word  tells  of  the  Living  Word — tells  of 
him  who  created  all  things  ;  who  is  the  "  Light  of 
the  world  "  and  Saviour  of  men.  God  gave  him 
"  the  name  which  is  above  every  name."  The  great- 
ness and  glory  of  this  name  shall  be  recognized  and 
acknowledged  by  all  created  intelligences,  in  heaven, 
in  earth,  and  under  the  earth ;  and,  at  last  "  every 
tongue  shall  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."  The  names  of  rulers, 
warriors,  and  statesmen;  of  philosophers,  scien- 
tists, and  theologians ;  of  critics,  skeptics,  and  infi- 
dels, great,  noble,  and  illustrious  in  the  sight  and 


216  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

estimation  of  men,  will  pale  as  the  morning  star 
before  the  rising  sun  before  the  name  of  Jesus.  And 
yet  God  has  magnified  his  Word,  by  which  he  made 
the  heavens,  and  which  "  endureth  forever,"  above 
this  greatest  and  most  glorious  of  names.  Surely 
that  which  God  has  so  exalted  and  honored  we  do 
well  and  wisely  to  love,  cherish,  and  obey.  "  For 
we  can  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  but  for  the 
truth"  (2  Cor.  13:8). 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  217 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

CONTROVERSY. 

There  are  many  in  the  Church  of  God  who  are 
averse  to  controversy.  Some  of  them  are  gentle, 
quiet,  timid,  shrinking  souls,  who  cannot  understand 
the  martial  commands  and  exhortations  of  the 
Bible.  Others  are  trimmers  and  politicians  — 
"  peace-at-any-price  "  people.  They  will  not  cen- 
sure or  condemn  the  man  who  destroys  the  "  Old 
Faith  "  if  he  claims  to  be  a  supernaturalist ;  but, 
strangely  enough,  they  decry  and  condemn  the  man 
who  defends  it.  Hence  the  critics  who  claim  to 
believe  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God  are  almost  un- 
hindered in  pushing  their  rationalistic  work  and 
views.  These  people  oppose  the  work  of  infidels ; 
they  condemn  the  destructive  criticisms  of  the  ac- 
knowledged rationalists ;  but,  when  a  man  in  the 
Church,  professing  to  believe  the  Bible  to  be  a  super- 
natural revelation  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  does 
the  very  same  work,  these  people  insist  that  they 
must  not  be  opposed,  and  will  condemn  as  unlov- 
ing and  unchristlike  the  man  who  does  it. 

They  say,  "  We  do  not  want  controversy ;  we 
want  peace."  They  seem  not  to  know  that  God's 
Word  says,  "  First  pure,  then  peaceable  "  (James 
3: 17).  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  have  peace  in  the 
Church  excepting  upon  the  ground  of  loyalty  to 
God's  Word.  Jesus  said,  "I  came  not  to  send 


218  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

peace,  but  a  sword"  (Matt.  10:34).  This  is  all 
"  because  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against 
God  "  (Rom.  8  :  7).  God  commands  the  Christian 
teacher  to  "  reprove  them  sharply,  that  they  may 
be  sound  in  the  faith,  not  giving  heed  to"  the 
"commandments  of  men  who  turn  away  from  the 
truth"  (Titus  1 : 13,  14).  Timothy  was  commanded 
to  "  Reprove,  rebuke,  exhort,  with  all  long-suffering 
and  teaching.  For  the  time  will  come  "  (without 
doubt  here  now)  "  when  they  will  not  endure  the 
sound  doctrine "  (the  integrity  and  sufficiency  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  see  Chap.  3) ;  but, 
having  itching  ears,  will  heap  to  themselves  teachers 
after  their  own  lusts ;  and  will  turn  away  their 
ears  from  the  truth,  and  turn  aside  unto  fables " 
(2  Tim.  4 : 2-4). 

In  the  Introduction  to  "Anti-Higher  Criticism  " 
(Hunt  &  Eaton,  150  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York)  I 
characterized  some  of  the  work  of  some  of  the 
critics  as  "audacious  assumptions."  One  promi- 
nent Church  paper  called  the  use  of  such  language* 
"  unscholarly  and  unchristlike."  The  reviewer  did 
not  say  my  statement  was  untrue.  If  it  were  un- 
true, of  course  it  would  have  been  "  unscholarly  and 
unchristlike."  But  it  is  true.  Can  the  truth  be  un- 
scholarly and  unchristlike  ?  The  effort  to  make  it 
appear  that  one  is  "  unscholarly  and  unchristlike  " 
because  he  tells  the  unvarnished  truth  is  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  weakness  of  their  cause,  and 
would  not  be  made  only  because  of  those  in  the 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  219 

Church  who  are  afraid  to  call  "  a  spade  a  spade  " 
and  the  "  Peace-at-any-price  "  party. 

What  of  the  language  of  the  Saviour  when,  in 
speaking  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  "  made 
void  the  word  of  God  because  of  their  traditions?" 
(Matt.  15:6,  R.  V.)  He  called  them  "  hypocrites ;  " 
"  ye  serpents,  ye  offspring  of  vipers  "  (Matt.  23  :  33) ; 
and  "  liars  "  (John  8:55);  etc.,  etc. 

Was  Paul  "  unscholarly  and  unchristlike  "  when, 
in  speaking  to  one  who  sought  to  "  turn  aside  the 
proconsul  from  the  faith,"  he  said  to  him  :  "  O,  full 
of  all  guile  and  all  villainy,  thou  son  of  the  devil, 
thou  enemy  of  all  righteousness,  wilt  thou  not 
cease  to  pervert  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord?" 
(Acts  13 :  10.) 

Was  the  gentle,  loving  John  "  unscholarly  and 
unchristlike  "  when  he  characterized  as  "  liars  "  all 
who  deny  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ  (i  John  2:22); 
the  man  who  claimed  to  be  a  Christian  and  yet  will 
not  obey  God  (i  John  2:4);  and  he  who  "  hateth 
his  brother  "  (i  John  4:  20)  ? 

Away  with  that  sentimentalism  and  cowardice 
that  apologizes  for  one,  or  condemns  him,  for  tell- 
ing the  truth  and  calling  things  by  their  right 
names  about  the  work  and  views  of  those  who  are 
undermining  the  fortress  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ ! 

While  we  ought  to  love  these  men  personally, 
and  do  them  all  the  good  we  can  (and  I  am  sure  I 

do  and  will,  and  I  have  never  said  or  written  one 
15 


220  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

word  derogatory  of  them  personally),  at  the  same 
time  we  must  condemn  their  destructive  work  or 
become  party  to  it.  (2  John  9-11.) 

These  be  perilous  times.  In  addition  to  the  pre- 
vailing unbelief  there  is  an  alarming  increase  of 
skepticism,  rationalism,  agnosticism,  and  infidelity. 
Can  any  one  for  a  moment  believe  that  the  work 
of  the  Higher  Critics  will  turn  this  tide  in  the  right 
direction  ?  We  do  know  that  their  work  is  largely 
the  cause  of  it. 

Bishop  Ryle  says : 

And  what  is  the  source  of  all  this  mischief?  I  believe  it  is  the 
result  of  the  constant  attacks  made  by  the  learned  critics  on  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Old  Testament,  producing  a  general  feeling  of  skep- 
ticism about  the  New  among  the  large  mass  of  people  who  know 
nothing  of  any  criticism,  but  are  glad  of  some  excuse  for  doubt- 
ing the  truth  of  the  whole  Bible.  The  consequence  is  a  general 
shakiness  in  men's  minds  about  Bible  religion  altogether.  I  firmly 
believe  that  many  of  our  modern  critics  mean  no  harm,  but  actually 
think  they  are  doing  God  service.  But  I  believe  with  equal  firm- 
ness that  one  result  of  this  Higher  Criticism  is  that  many  people 
in  this  day  never  read  their  Bibles  at  all,  or  at  any  rate  read  less 
than  they  used  to. 


yS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  221 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

SOME    NOTEWORTHY   TESTIMONIES. 

Josephus,  the  great  Jewish  historian,  who  wrote 
about  A.  D.  g2,  93,  says,  concerning  the  canon  of 
the  Old  testament : 

"  With  us,"  in  contrast  to  the  contradictions  of  Greek  his- 
tory, "  there  are,  not  myriads  of  books  inharmonious  and  con- 
flicting, but  two  and  twenty  books  only,  containing  the  records 
of  the  whole  time,  and  rightly  believed  to  be  Divine.  Of 
these,  five  are  those  of  Moses,  which  comprises  as  well  the 
matters  of  law  as  the  account  of  the  generation  of  man,  to  the 
time  of  his  death.  This  period  is  little  short  of  3,000  years. 
"But  from  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  the 
King  of  Persia  after  Xerxes,  the  prophets  after  Moses  wrote 
what  was  done  in  their  times,  in  thirteen  books.  The  four  re- 
maining books  contain  hymns  to  God,  and  suggestions  to  men 
as  to  their  lives.  From  Artaxerxes  down  to  our  own  times, 
events  have  been  recorded,  but  they  have  not  been  accounted 
worthy  of  the  same  credit  as  those  before  them,  because  the 
exact  succession  of  Prophets  existed  no  longer.  And  it  is  evi- 
dent indeed,  how  we  stand  affected  by  our  own  writings.  For, 
so  long  a  period  having  now  elapsed,  no  one  has  dared  either 
to  add  or  to  take  away  from  them,  or  to  change  any  thing ;  it 
being  a  thing  implanted  in  all  the  Jews  from  their  birth,  that 
they  should  account  them  as  oracles  01  God,  and  abide  by 
them,  and,  if  needful  to  gladly  die  for  them." 

He  further  says : 

"  Since  I  see  many  attending  to  the  blasphemies  uttered  by 
some  out  of  hostility,  and  disbelieving  what  I  have  written 
about  our  antiquities,  and  making  it  a  token  ot  the  modernness 
of  our  race,  that  the  celebrated  Grecian  historians  have  not  ac- 
counted it  worthy  of  mention,  I  thought  it  needful  to  write 
briefly  of  all  these  things." 


222 


Professor  Luthardt  can  speak  from  experience  on 
this  subject.  For  nearly  40  years  he  has  been  pro- 
fessor of  theology,  at  Leipsic,  and  an  effective  leader 
among  the  evangelical  scholars  of  Germany.  He 
has  combatted  the  rationalistic  theories  that  were 
so  popular  and  threatening  a  generation  ago,  and  he 
has  lived  to  see  them  dead  and  buried.  Therefore 
he  has  no  anxiety  because  of  the  new  storms  that 
have  arisen.  In  a  recent  article  he  utters  these  en- 
couraging words  : 

"  We  have  had  too  many  experiences  in  this  respect,  have 
seen  too  many  hypotheses  come  and  go.  Who  knows  what 
gravediggers  already  stand  at  the  door  ?  We  older  ones  had 
experience  in  Baur's  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  and  some 
of  us  took  an  active  part  in  opposing  it.  Where  is  that  school 
now?  What  a  stir  D.  F.  Strauss  made  in  his  day!  All  who 
understand  the  matter  now  have  abandoned  the  theory  that  the 
life  of  Jesus  consists  of  myths.  How  many  in  Germany,  even 
in  scientific  circles,  compromised  themselves  by  their  attitude 
towards  Kenan's  Life  of  Jesus  !  Who  ever  speaks  seriously  of 
this  French  romance  now  ? " 

Coleridge  remarks: 

"  One  striking  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Mosaic  Books 
is  this  :  they  contain  precise  prohibitions,  by  way  of  predicting 
the  consequences  of  disobedience,  of  all  those  things  which 
David  and  Solomon  actually  did  and  gloried  in  doing — raising 
cavalry,  making  a  treaty  with  Egypt,  laying  up  treasure,  and 
polygamizing.  Now,  could  such  prohibitions  have  been  fabri- 
cated in  these  kings'  reigns  or  afterwards  ?  Impossible  !  " 

Kiel  and  Delitzsch  in  Introduction  to  Genesis 
say  : 

"  All  that  has  been  adduced  as  proof  of.  the  contrary  (the 
Mosaic  origin)  by  the  so-called  Modern  Criticism,  is  founded 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  223 

either  upon  misunderstanding  and  misinterpretation,  or  upon 
a  misapprehension  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Semitic  style  of 
historical  writing,  or  lastly,  upon  doctrinal  prejudices,  in  other 
words,  upon  a  repudiation  of  all  the  supernatural  characteris- 
tics of  Divine  revelation,  whether  in  the  form  of  miracle  or 
prophecy." 

Rawlinson,  the  distinguished  antiquarian  and  one 
of  the  most  competent  of  critics,  says: 

Every  work  which  comes  down  to  us  as  the  work  of  a  par- 
ticular author,  is  to  be  accepted  as  his  production,  unless 
strong  grounds  can  be  produced  to  the  contrary.  The  onus 
frobandi  lies  with  the  person  who  denies  the  genuineness;  and, 
unless  the  arguments  adduced  in  proof  are  very  weighty,  the 
fact  of  reputed  authorship  ought  to  overpower  them.  Sound 
criticism  has  generally  acquiesced  in  this  canon.  It  raises  an 
important  presumption  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch,  anterior  to  any  proof  of  the  fact  to  be  derived 
from  internal  evidence,  or  from  the  testimony  of  those  who 

had  special  opportunities  of  knowing Until  it  is 

shown  that  the  book  was  not  composed  by  its  reputed  author, 
the  mode  and  time  of  its  composition  are  not  fit  objects  of  re- 
search. .  .  .  There  is  really  not  a  pretence  for  saying  that 
recent  discoveries  in  the  field  of  history,  monumental  or  other, 
have  made  the  acceptance  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  in  its  plain 
and  literal  sense  any  more  difficult  now,  than  in  the  days  of 
Bossuet  and  Stillingfleet. 

To  the  charge  of  Dewette,  that  the  evidence  for  the  Penta- 
teuch is  of  little  worth,  because  the  Jews  were  uncritical,  he 
says  :  "  The  Jews  and  Greeks,  who  during  eighteen  centuries, 
without  a  dissentient  voice,  ascribed  the  '  Book  of  the  Law '  to 
Moses,  were  not  acquainted  with  the  modern  Critical  Analysis, 
which  claims  to  be  an  infallible  judge  of  the  age,  and  mode  of 
composition,  of  every  literary  production.  It  is  true  the  wit- 
nesses include  apostles,  prophets,  confessors,  our  Blessed  Lord 
Himself ;  but  the^distance  of  these  witnesses  is  held  to  invalid- 
ate their  testimony;  or  if  the  words  of  One  at  least  are  too 


224  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

sacred  to  be  gainsaid,  He  spoke  (it  is  argued)  by  way  of  accom- 
modation, in  order  not  to  shock  the  prejudices  of  the  Jew.  .  . 
"  It  appears  that  the  Pentateuch  is  either  cited  or  mentioned 
as  the  work  of  Moses,  by  almost  the  whole  series  of  Jewish  his- 
torical writers  from  Moses  to  Ezra. 

Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  in  "  Modern  Objections — 
Antiquated  Errors,"  calls  attention  to  the  celebrated 
case  of  the  critic  Leclerc  or  Clericus,  as  follows  : 

In  the  last  century  the  celebrated  critic  Leclerc  or  Clericus, 
was  led  to  deny  that  the  Pentateuch  was  the  genuine  work  of 
Moses,  on  grounds  similar  to  those  now  ventilated. 

Dr.  Dick  in  his  admirable  Lectures  on  Theology,  p.  27,  Am. 
Ed.,  says  of  Leclerc  :  "  His  hypothesis  is  conjectural,  improba- 
ble, and  contrary  not  only  to  the  uniform  belief  of  the  whole 
Jewish  nation,  but  also  to  the  testimony  of  inspiration."  He 
then  refers  to  the  reply  of  Witsius  to  Leclerc,  and  quotes  Wat- 
son's Apology,  Letter  III.  "  A  small  addition  to  a  book,"  it 
has  been  observed,  "  does  not  destroy  the  genuineness  or  the 
authenticity  of  the  whole  book."  He  thus  continues :  "  It  is 
probable  that  Clericus  hastily  adopted  this  opinion  :  it  is  cer- 
tain that  on  mature  reflection  he  renounced  it,  and  acquiesced 
in  the  common  belief  of  Jews  and  Christians,  which  is  con- 
firmed by  the  testimony  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  that  the 
first  five  books  of  the  Bible  were  written  by  Moses."  (See 
Prolegom.  i  Dissert.  Ill,  Scriptore  Pentateuchi.) 

The  experience  of  Leclerc  is  so  interesting  in  this  connec- 
tion that  we  are  led  to  give  an  extract  from  the  "  Jews'  Letter 
to  Voltaire,"  who,  when  this  arch-infidel  used  the  name  of  this 
great  German  critic,  to  fortify  his  attacks  on  Moses,  replied  : 
"  We  shall  not  conceal  that  Leclerc  did  at  first  hold  this 
opinion.  But  if  we  owed  that  acknowledgement  to  truth,  were 
you  not  under  the  same  obligation  to  inform  your  readers, 
that  he  changed  his  mind  since,  and  in  a  riper  age  openly  em- 
braced that  opinion  which  he  combatted  in  his  youth  ? " 
Leclerc  says:  "These  slight  additions,  made% by  the  prophets 
who  lived  after  Moses,  ought  not  to  prevent  us  from  looking 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  225 

upon  him  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  since  there  are  so 
many  other  proofs  of  this,  just  as  the  Hebrew  antiquities  are 
ascribed  to  Josephus,  although  some  passages  may  have  been 
inserted  by  recent  hands  ;"  and  again  :  "  Moses  cannot  with  any 
show  of  reason,  be  denied  to  have  been  the  real  author  of  the 
Pentateuch."  (See  Jews'  Letters  to  Voltaire,  p.  145-7.) 

The  late  very  scholarly  Dr.  Liddon,  Canon  of 
St.  Paul's,  said: 

For  Christians  it  will  be  enough  to  know  that  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  set  the  seal  of  His  infallible  sanction  on  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament.  He  found  the  Hebrew  canon  as  we 
have  it  in  our  hands  to-day,  and  He  treated  it  as  an  authority 
which  was  above  discussion.  Nay,  more ;  He  went  out  of  His 
way — if  we  may  reverently  speak  thus — to  sanction  not  a  few 
portions  of  it  which  modern  skepticism  rejects. 

Thus,  to  take  an  example :  In  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
long  addresses  are  ascribed  to  Moses  (Deut.  i,  i,  etc. ;  v,  i,  etc.), 
and  Moses  describes  a  series  of  events  of  which  he  claims  to 
have  been  an  eye-witness  (Deut.  ix.  16;  x.  1-5,  etc).  If,  then, 
we  are  told  that  the  addresses  were  really  unspoken  and  these 
events  unwitnessed  by  Moses ;  that  the  "  dramatized "  or,  to 
speak  plainly,  fictitious  account  of  them  was  composed  by  some 
Jew,  with  a  fine  idealizing  faculty,  who  lived  many  centuries 
after  Moses ;  and  this,  although  the  book  was  undoubtedly 
imposed  upon  the  conscience  of  the  Jewish  people,  at  any  rate 
after  the  exile,  as  the  work  of  Moses  himself  ;  we  must  observe 
that  such  a  representation  is  irreconcilable  with  the  veracity 
of  the  book,  which  by  its  use  of  the  name  of  the  great  law- 
giver claims  an  authority  that,  according  to  the  critics  in 
question,  does  not  belong  to  it ;  or,  if  that  striking  prediction 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  about  King  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes  (Dan.  viii,  13-25),  was  really,  as  has  been 
asserted,  written  after  the  events  referred  to,  and  thrown 
into  the  form  of  prediction  by  some  scribe  of  the  second  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  in  order  to  arouse  and  encourage  the  Jews 
in  their  long  struggle  with  the  Graeco-  Syrian  power,  then  it 


226  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

must  be  said  that  the  book  in  which  it  occurs  is  not  trust- 
worthy ;  the  writer  is  endeavoring  to  produce  a  national 
enthusiasm  by  means  of  a  representation  which  he  must  have 
known  to  be  contrary  to  fact. 

Are  we  to  suppose  that  in  these  and  other  (St.  John  v.  46,  47 ; 
cf.  Deut.  xviii,  15,  18,  etc.),  references  to  the  Old  Testament 
our  Lord  was  only  using  ad  hominem  arguments,  or  talking 
down  to  the  level  of  a  popular  ignorance  which  He  did  not 
Himself  share  ?  Not  to  point  out  the  inconsistency  of  this 
supposition  with  His  character  as  a  perfectly  sincere  religious 
teacher,  it  may  be  observed  that  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
He  marks  off  those  features  of  the  popular  Jewish  religion 
which  He  rejects  (St.  Matt.  v.  27-48)  or  modifies,  in  a  manner 
which  makes  it  certain  that,  had  He  not  Himself  believed  in  the 
historic  truth  of  the  events  and  persons  to  which  He  thus  re- 
fers, He  would  have  said  so.  But  did  He  then  share  a  popular 
belief  which  our  higher  knowledge  has  shown  to  be  popular 
ignorance?  and  was  He  whom  His  apostle  believed  to  be  full 
of  grace  and  truth  (St.  John  i,  14)  and  "  in  whom  are  hid  all 
the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge"  (Col.  ii,  3),  indeed 
mistaken  as  to  the  real  worth  of  those  Scriptures  to  which  He 
so  often  and  so  confidently  appealed?  There  are  those  who 
profess  to  bear  the  Christian  name,  and  yet  do  not  shrink  from 
saying  as  much  as  this.  But  they  will  find  it  difficult  to  per- 
suade mankind  that,  if  He  could  be  mistaken  on  a  matter  of 
such  strictly  religious  importance  as  the  value  of  the  sacred 
literature  of  His  countrymen  He  can  be  safely  trusted  about 
any  thing  else.  The  trustworthiness  of  the  Qld  Testament  is, 
in  fact,  inseparable  from  the  trustworthiness  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;  and  if  we  believe  that  He  is  the  true  Light  of  the 
world,  we  shall  close  our  ears  against  suggestions  impairing  the 
credit  of  those  Jewish  Scriptures  which  have  received  the 
stamp  of  His  divine  authority. 

Prof.  Taylor  Lewis  in  his  Introduction  to  Gen- 
esis in  Lang's  Commentary,  says : 

Those  who  set  the  least  value  on  the  idea  of  inspiration, 
find  a  fancied  support  not  only  of  what  is  called  the  documen- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  227 

tary  theory  of  Genesis,  but  also  of  their  favorite  notion  of 
earlier  and  later  periods  in  the  composition  of  the  whole  and 
even  of  particular  parts.  .  .  .  This  view  is  already  curing 
itself  by  its  ultra-rationalistic  extravagance.  It  reduces  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  not  only  to  fragments,  but  to  fragments 
of  fragments  in  most  ill-assorted  and  jumbled  confusion.  Its 
supporters  find  themselves,  at  last,  in  direct  opposition  to  their 
favorite  maxim,  that  the  Bible  must  be  interpreted  as  though 
written  like  any  other  book.  For,  surely,  no  other  book  was 
ever  so  composed  or  so  compiled.  In  the  same  narrative,  pre- 
senting every  appearance  of  narrative  unity,  they  find  the 
strangest  juxtaposition  of  passages  from  different  authors,  and 
written  at  different  times,  according  as  the  one  name  (Elohim') 
or  the  other  (Jehovah)  is  found  in  it.  One  verse,  and  even  a 
clause  of  a  verse,  is  written  by  the  Elohist,  the  next  by  the  Je- 
hovist,  with  nothing  besides  this  difference  of  names  to  mark 
any  difference  in  purpose  or  authorship.  Calling  it  a  compila- 
tion will  not  help  the  absurdity,  for  no  other  compilation  was 
ever  made  in  this  way.  To  make  the  confusion  worse,  there 
is  brought  in,  occasionally,  a  third  or  a  fourth  writer,  or  an 
editor,  or  reviewer,  and  all  this  without  any  of  those  actual 
proofs  or  tests,  which  are  applied  to  other  ancient  writings, 
and  in  the  use  of  which  this  "  Higher  Criticism,"  as  it  calls 
itself,  is  so  much  inclined  to  vaunt. 

Principal  Cave,  in  his  "Battle  of  the  Standpoints" 
bears  the  following  testimony  : 

"Genesis,  we  aver,  is  a  compilation  of  t-wo  documents,  an 
Elohist  and  Jehovist  document,"  said  the  Decomposition  Critics 
about  the  beginning  of  this  century.  But  it  was  objected,  no 
mere  compilation  could  have  produced  such  a  book.  "Allow 
us  to  amend  our  theory,"  replied  the  Critics,  "and  permit  us  to 
say,  that  Genesis,  so  far  from  being  a  mere  compilation  of  two 
works,  is  a  new  and  much  enlarged  edition  of  one  man's  work 
(the  Elohist)  by  another  (the  Jehovist)."  But  it  was  objected 
to  this,  why  speak' you  of  Genesis  only,  why  do  you  not  extend 
the  process  to  all  the  Books  of  the  Law?  "  Why  not,  indeed?  " 


THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 


replied  the  Critics.  "Allow  us  to  amend  our  theory  again,  and 
say  that  the  whole  Law,  as  well  as  Genesis,  is  the  result  of  sup- 
plementing, by  the  Jehovist,  of  the  document  of  the  Elohist." 
But  again  it  was  objected,  that  so  uniform  a  book  as  Deuter- 
onomy could  not  have  been  the  product  of  such  a  process. 
"  You  are  quite  right,"  said  the  Critics,  "  we  will  again  amend 
our  theory  and  say,  now,  that  the  Pentateuch  is  a  supplementing 
by  the  Jehovist,  of  tivo  original  works  written,  one  by  the  Elo- 
hist, the  other  by  the  Deuteronomist."  But  it  was  further 
objected,  that  the  sections  attributed  to  the  Jehovist  sometimes 
contained  the  name  of  Elohim,  and  sometimes  showed  the  style 
of  the  Elohist.  "Again  you  are  right,"  rejoined  the  Critics 
"  we  will  once  more  amend  our  theory,  and  say  that  there  are 
two  Elohistic  documents,  an  earlier  and  a  later."  But  to  this 
it  was  still  objected  that  perhaps  the  order  of  writing  is  not 
Elohist,  Deuteronomist,  Jehovist.  "  There  is  no  '  perhaps ' 
about  it,"  said  the  Critics ;  "  allow  us  the  goodness  to  amend 
again  ;  we  now  desire  to  consider  that  writer  as  the  latest 
whom  we  held  formerly  to  be  the  earliest,  and  we  now  declare 
the  order  of  writing  to  be  Jehovist,  Deuteronomist,  Elohist." 
But  it  was  objected,  again,  that  there  are  facts  which  do  not 
square  with  this  view.  "  We  will,  therefore,"  said  the  Critics, 
"  amend  again  our  theory.  Manifestly  it  is  too  simple.  Let  us 
make  it  more  complicated,  and  express  our  belief  that  the 
Jehovist  shows  traces  of  at  least  three  hands,  and  the  Deuter- 
onomist of  three  hands,  and  the  Elohist  of  three  hands"  But  it 
was  again  objected,  that  if  the  Elohist  wrote  the  "  Book  of 
Law  "  about  B.  C.  400,  then  it  is  impossible  to  explain  how 
Elohistic  terms  and  practices  could  occur  in  the  "  Book  of 
Joshua,"  written,  say,  about  B.  C.  1400.  "  Oh  !  "  said  the  De- 
composition Critics,  "  we  affirm  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  was 
not  written  prior  to  B.  C.  400."  But  it  was  objected  that  there 
are  Psalms  expressly  attributed  to  David,  and  yet  in  these 
Davidic  Psalms,  written,  say,  about  B.  C.  1000,  there  are  evident 
references  to  the  Elohistic  sections  of  the  Law,  said  to  have 
been  written  before  B.  C.  400.  "  Really,  under  the  exigencies 
of  our  theory,"  replied  the  Critics,  "we  will  just  deny  that  any 
Psalms  whatever  were  written  by  David." 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  229 

So  spake  the  Critics.  How  amusing  it  would  be,  were  it 
not  so  lamentable  !  The  latest  "  adjustment"  I  know  of  comes 
from  Dr.  Kuenen.  In  the  old  edition  of  his  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament,  Leyden,  1863,  Dr.  Kuenen  dated  the  prophecy 
of  Joel  as  about  B.  C.  860.  But  Joel  contains  references  of  an 
Elohistic  kind,  and  consequently,  in  his  edition,  published  last 
year,  he  says  that  Joel  was  written  "  after,  rather  than  before, 
B.  C.  400.  Nor  has  Criticism,  I  imagine,  finished  its  'adjust- 
ments '  yet !  Nay,  I  believe,  with  that  talented  man,  Professor 
Strack,  of  Berlin,  that,  in  spite  of  the  great  popularity  which 
the  views  of  Graf  and  Wellhausen  enjoy  at  the  present  time,  I 
am  nevertheless  persuaded  that  an  essential  change  in  the 
previous  treatment  of  the  history  of  Israel,  and  especially  of 
the  activity  of  Moses,  will  not  exist  permanently."  Nay,  I  go 
further  than  Strack,  for  he  somewhat  qualifies  this  statement  of 
his.  In  my  view,  Criticism,  under  the  stress  of  Criticism,  will 
presently  complete  the  circle,  and  avow,  as  a  further  "  adjust- 
ment" that  the  Pentateuch  -was  -written  by  Moses  after  all! — In 
his  recent  trenchant  article  on  the  "  Old  Testament  and  Its  Crit- 
ics," he  writes  :  "  I  venture  to  impugn  the  judgment  of  the  author- 
ities (Wellhausen,  Dillmann,  Ewald,  Dewette  and  others),  and  I 
do  so  after  having  some  years  ago,  cordially,  nay,  enthusiastically, 
believed  in  their  value.  But  maturer,  and  more  protracted  ex- 
amination has  led  me  utterly  to  distrust  the  more  serious  results 
announced  by  these  authorities.  While  I  cannot  but  express 
my  warmest  gratitude  to  the  great  German  experts  in  the  Old 
Testament,  I  feel  myself  reluctantly  compelled  to  avow,  that 
experience  has  led  me  to  distrust  the  conclusions  these  experts 
have  drawn  from  the  facts  they  have  so  perseveringly  mar- 
shalled." (Cont.  Rev.,  April,  1890,  341,  3.) 

Professor  Green,  in  his  reply  to  Professor  Har- 
per's presentation  of  the  case,  speaks  as  follows : 

The  serious  aspect  of  the  affair  is  this,  that  there  are  pre- 
suppositions involved  in  the  arguments  employed  and  deduc- 
tions made,  which  are  subversive  of  the  credibility  and  inspired 
authority  of  the  sacred  record.  This  constitutes  the  gravity  of 


230  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

the  case,  as  it  affects  the  great  body  of  those  who  reverence  the 
Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God.  The  mythical  character  at- 
taching to  the  early  records  of  pagan  nations,  is  not  to  be  im- 
puted to  the  biblical  account  of  the  primaeval  age  of  the  world, 
or  of  the  origin  of  the  Israelitish  people,  for  the  narrative  of 
the  Bible  is  absolutely  unique.  It  stands  alone,  among  all  the 
records  of  antiquity,  in  preserving  in  its  primitive  purity  the 
true  knowledge  of  God,  in  its  freedom  from  mythological  con- 
ceits, and  in  presenting  a  truly  rational  account,  strikingly  con- 
firmed in  its  main  outlines  at  least,  if  not  in  all  its  details,  by 
modern  scientific  research,  as  no  similar  document  of  antiquity 
can  pretend  to  be,  in  relation  to  the  Origin  of  the  World, 
Unity  of  the  Human  Race,  Primaeval  History  of  Mankind,  and 
the  filiation  of  the  Nations.  And,  as  a  preliminary  stage  in  a 
grand  scheme  of  Divine  Revelation  continued  through  suc- 
ceeding ages,  whose  reality  and  supernatural  character  are  at- 
tested by  the  most  convincing  proofs,  it  has  a  well-founded 
claim  to  be  regarded  as  transmitting  a  faithful  account  of 
God's  dealings  with  men  from  the  beginning. 

"  The  laws,  from  Exodus  to  Deuteronomy,  are,  by  their  own 
positive  claim,  by  ineffaceable  internal  indications,  and  by 
both  the  express  attestation  and  incidental  historical  confirma- 
tion of  subsequent  Scriptures,  irrefragically  Mosaic.  And 
Genesis,  which  is  clearly  preliminary  to  the  books  that  follow 
must,  as  the  critics  themselves  allow,  have  the  same  origin  as 
they.  There  is  something  clearly  wrong  in  a  '  Critical  Pro- 
cess'which  can  take  a  history  that,  in  itself,  is  quite  consist- 
ent and  entirely  credible,  and  sunder  it  into  distinct 
documents  mutually  repugnant  and  irreconcileable.  A  purely 
'Literary  Analysis'  on  grounds  of  diction,  style,  and  modes  of 
thought,  cannot  impair  the  truth  of  what  is  otherwise  credible, 
or  the  consistency  of  what  is  in  itself  harmonious.  And,  in 
fact,  the  damaging  consequences  attributed  to  the  critical  hy- 
pothesis result  in  great  part,  from  inferences  resting  not  on  posi- 
tive data,  but  on  the  critics.  The  fundamental  vice  in  the  whole 
process  is  that  they  quietly  assume  what  they  undertake  to 
demonstrate.  When  the  credibility  of  Genesis  is  undermined, 
by  alleging  that  the  primary  documents  out  of  which  it  was 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  231 

complied  were  first  committed  to  writing  many  centuries  after 
the  Mosaic  age,  this  conclusion  is  notoriously  and  avowedly 
based  on  grounds  which  presuppose  their  unhistorical  charac- 
ter, convert  them  into  fluctuating  myths  and  legends,  and 
assume  likewise  that  all  the  rest  of  the  sacred  history  has  been 
tampered  with,  and  deliberately  falsified.  As  to  the  Middle 
Books  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  divisive  hypothesis  launches  into 
the  open  sea,  destitute  of  chart  or  compass,"  encountering 
"  reefs,  shallows,  cross-currents,  whirlpools,  fogs  and  storms, 
and  every  peril  known  to  navigators.  If  the  History  of  Lit- 
erature affords  an  ampler  illustration  of  '  confusion  worse  con- 
founded,' that  the  hopeless  inextricable  medley  in  which  the 
critics  find  themselves  in  their  attempts  to  struggle  through 
the  three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  acquisi- 
tion of  doubtful  value  to  themselves  which  they  use  in  order 
to  create  a  Hexateuch,  the  Book  of  Joshua,  it  has  never  yet 
been  discovered."  And  as  to  the  argument  from  "  Style," 
"  Discrepancies,"  "  Duplicate  Accounts,"  "  Contradictions," 
"  Divine  Name,"  etc.,  etc.  "  The  discrepancies  and  contradic- 
tions alleged  to  prove  diversity  of  authorship  do  not  exist;  if 
they  did  they  would  make  the  work  of  the  Redactor  inconceiv- 
able. There  is  no  duplicate  account  of  the  Creation,  nor  of 
the  line  of  the  descent  from  Adam  to  the  existing  race  of  man- 
kind, nor  of  the  Deluge.  There  are  no  such  differences  of 
language  as  require  the  assumption  of  a  diversity  of  writers. 
The  alternation  of  the  Divine  Names  can  be  explained  with- 
out this  assumption.  The  alleged  difference  of  style  is  ficti- 
tious. 


He  concludes  his  masterly  refutation  of  Prof. 
Harper's  views,  by  saying : 

"  My  own  private  opinion  on  the  subject  corresponds 
with  that  of  Zopharthe  Naamathite,  respecting  the  Saviourian 
hypothesis.  When  he  would  say,  in  the  most  emphatic  man- 
ner, that  a  thing  is  impossible  he  says  that  it  may  take  place 
1  when  a  wild  ass's  colt  is  born  a  nUto ! '  Tob  2  :  12." 


232  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

The  following  very  explicit  testimony  is  by  Prof. 
S.  K.  Kellogg: 

Our  Saviour  took  it  for  granted  that  the  whole  legislative 
part  of  the  Pentateuch  was  the  work  of  Moses ;  so  that  to  my 
mind  Christ  has  settled  that  question.  But  it  does  not  follow, 
necessarily,  and  therefore,  Moses  with  his  own  hand  wrote  every 
word  of  that  law.  Yet  to  many  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  as  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  book  of  the  law  is  not  decisive. 
Some  argue  that  it  is  possible  that  our  Lord  may  have  been 
ignorant  on  this  matter,  without  any  prejudice  to  His  divinity. 
According  to  this  unbelieving  theory,  when  He  thought  He 
was  quoting  the  Word  of  God  to  Moses,  He  was  really  quoting 
a  priestly  forgery ;  and  this  means  that  He  was  so  ignorant  of 
the  meaning  of  the  Father,  that  He  did  not  know  His  Father's 
own  word  when  He  saw  it. 

Is  it  credible  to  any  loyal  Christian  that  His  ignorance  ex- 
tended as  far  as  this?  I  must  say  that  if  that  was  so,  that  Jesus 
was  mistaken  as  to  that,  He  might  also  have  been  mistaken  as 
to  His  being  the  Son  of  God.  The  critics  of  the  unbelieving 
school  maintain,  for  instance,  that  the  Law  as  given  in  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  only  originated  in  the  days  of  Josiah ; 
but  our  Lord  quotes  from  Deuteronomy  as  the  law  of  Moses. 
You  remember  when  the  Sadduces  asked  about  the  widow  who 
was  to  marry  her  deceased  husband's  brother,  the  Lord  refer- 
red them  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  particular  to  this  book, 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  And  in  another  place,  our  Saviour 
in  John  5,  said  to  the  Jews,  "  If  ye  had  believed  Moses,  ye 
would  have  believed  me ;  but  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings, 
how  shall  ye  believe  My  words?"  Now,  this  appears  to  me 
conclusive,  and  I  am  convinced  that  in  at  least  the  general 
sense  which  I  explained  at  first,  when  Christ  spoke  of  the  book 
in  that  general  way  He  really  endorsed  it  as  in  a  true  sense  the 
law  of  Moses.  All  the  force  of  His  argument  depends  upon 
the  fact  that  Moses  "  Wrote  of  Him ;"  and  if  these  four  words 
are  true,  then  our  Lord  Jesus  certifies  not  only  to  its  author- 
ship, but  to  its  inspiration,  for  to  write  of  Christ  centuries  be- 
fore He  came  implies  supernatural  foreknowledge  in  the  writer. 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  233 

I  have  referred  to  the  claim  of  Mosaic  authorship  of  large 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  the  work  itself  contains.  In 
Leviticus,  for  example,  fifty-six  times  in  twenty-seven  chapters 
it  is  stated  or  implied  that  this  law  was  given  by  the  Lord  to 
Moses ;  fifty-six  falsehoods,  if  the  rationalists  are  right.  Fur- 
thermore, the  language  of  this  law  is  not  modern  Hebrew. 
Then  there  are  so  many  allusions,  incidents,  and  regulations, 
which  are  perfectly  natural  if  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in 
the  time  of  the  Exodus ;  but  which  are  simply  unaccountable 
if  it  was  first  originated  at  a  later  period.  It  is  repeatedly  evi- 
dent that  the  writer  had  intimate  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian 
law,  the  customs  and  manners  in  the  days  of  Moses ;  and  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  believe  that  any  man  could  have  written 
the  book  so  many  centuries  afterwards  without  error  in  some 
such  minute  details,  which,  indeed,  he  could  have  had  no  suffi- 
cient motive  for  inventing. 

In  the  references  which  he  makes  he  is  always  true  to  the 
facts  as  they  were  fifteen  centuries  before  Christ.  Archaeo- 
logical researches  are  also  confirming  this  argument.  In  like 
manner,  we  have  references  to  various  customs  of  the  Egyp- 
tians in  that  age ;  as,  for  instance,  to  the  goat  worship  of 
Mendes;  as  in  the  Revised  version  in  Lev.  17.  And  we  find 
many  references  in  the  law  to  wilderness-life ;  as  in  laws  for 
the  "  camp ;"  but  what  would  be  the  object  in  inventing  these 
when  Israel  had  for  centuries  been  settled  in  Canaan.  It 
would  only  have  increased  the  danger  of  detecting  the  forged 
character  of  the  narrative  to  burden  it  with  such  details. 

Again,  if  the  law  of  Moses  was  written  in  Palestine  long 
after  Moses'  day,  the  writer,  whoever  he  was,  in  the  law  of 
clean  and  unclean  animals,  would  have  referred  to  the  animals 
about  him  in  Canaan,  but  instead  he  enumerated  the  animals 
of  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula.  Would  a  Palestinian  writer  com- 
mand Israel  not  to  eat  many  beasts  that  they  had  never  seen  ? 
Last  of  all,  I  cannot  shut  my  eyes  to  the  fact  that  in  this 
book  there  are  predictions.  The  26th  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Leviticus,  is  a  marvellous  miniature  of  Israel's  history,  and  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  contains  another.  In  these  there  are 
many  details  of  Israel's  history  predicted,  that  were  not  ful- 


234  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

filled  at  the  time,  and  are  not  fulfilled  yet,  but  will  be  in  the 
future.  But  these  predictions  cannot  be  forgeries ;  for  they 
imply  the  inspiration  of  the  writer  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1888,  composed  of 
the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  church: 

A  report  was  presented,  in  some  respects  the  most  able  and 
masterly  of  all  the  reports  offered ;  but  after  a  discussion,  the 
earnestness  and  solemnity  of  which  could  not  fail  to  impress 
each  member  of  this  body,  the  report  was  re-committed  by  an 
overwhelming  vote  in  consequence  of  a  few  expressions  which 
seemed  to  convey  the  impression,  or,  at  least,  to  take  the  posi- 
tion for  the  sake  of  argument,  with  the  unbeliever,  that  the 
Church  felt  well  assured  only  of  the  substantial  truth  of  the 
New  Testament ;  and  further  conceding,  or  seeming  to  concede, 
that  the  opening  portions  of  the  Word  of  God,  like  its  close, 
were  a  vision  or  an  allegory.  The  conclusions  seemingly  to  be 
deduced  from  the  few  phrases  we  have  indicated  by  this  report, 
were  denied  by  the  members  of  the  Committee ;  but  the  sense 
of  the  reverence  due  to  the  Word  of  God  was  such  that  no  ex- 
planations were  deemed  sufficient  to  prevent  the  re-commitment 
of  the  whole  report  with  a  view  to  the  elimination  of  its  ob- 
jectionable features.  On  its  reappearance,  with  modifications 
in  its  language  and  t expressions,  at  a  later  day,  objection  was 
still  made  to  what  was  deemed  unwise  and  unnecessary  admis- 
sions, and  finally  the  report,  able  and  excellent  in  all  but  a  few 
words,  as  it  certainly  was,  was  refused  a  place  in  the  printed 
proceedings  of  the  Conference  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 
This  action  of  the  assembled  bishops  affirmed  their  reverence 
and  respect  for  the  Word  of  God,  and  their  unwillingness, 
even  for  argument's  sake,  to  make  concessions  as  to  its  substan- 
tial verity,  or  admissions  that  might  characterize  portions  of  it 
as  vision  or  allegory.  It  was  feared  that  the  language  of  the 
report  might  be  misunderstood,  and  its  admissions  might  be 
used  to  detract  from  the  confidence  all  should  feel  in  God's 
Word  as  the  revelation  of  his  will  and  way. 


FS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  235 

No  one  who  was  present  at  this  debate  can  fail  to  recall  the 
earnest,  scholarly  and  impressive  speech  of  the  learned  Bishop 
of  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  Dr.  Ellicott,  in  defense  of  the  Bible — 
the  whole  Bible.  Like  solemn  and  eloquent  words  were  spoken 
by  the  Bishops  of  Durham,  Dr.  Lightfoot ;  Winchester,  Dr.  Har- 
old Browne  ;  and  Cork,  Dr.  Gregg.  Every  American  bishop 
present,  save  one,  voted  for  the  re-commitment  of  the  report. — 
New  York  Independent,  Nov.  19,  1891. 

The  almost  unanimous  vote  of  the  Presbyterian 
General  Assembly,  in  Detroit,  May  1891,  refusing  to 
approve  the  appointing  Prof.  Briggs  to  a  chair  in 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  was  fairly  expressive 
of  the  views  entertained  by  that  great  and  learned 
body,  of  the  "  Higher  Criticism,"  as  expounded  by 
Prof.  Briggs. 

The  following  named  scholars,  every  one  an  intel- 
lectual giant,  may  be  named,  beside  many  I  have 
already  named,  and  many  more  that  I  might  name, 
are  against  the  Higher  Criticism  in  its  popular 
sense:  Eichorn,  Michaelis,  Rosemuller,  N^ander, 
Tholuck,  Ranke,  Hengstenberg,  Lange,  Drechsler, 
Kiel  and  Havernick. 

The  following  eloquent,  earnest  and  spirited 
words  were  used  by  the  scholarly  Critic,  Dr.  Nathaniel 
West,  in  closing  a  most  able  and  convincing  address 
against  the  Higher  Criticism  at  Mr.  Moody 's  Con- 
ference, at  Northfield,  in  the  Summer  of  1891 : 

I  have   gone  through  every  argument  they  have  in  every 

writer  that  I  can  get  hold  of,  and  there  are  100,000  men  in  this 

land  who  can   read  German  just  as  well  as  these  professors 

and  understand  it  when  translated  into    English,  and  know 

16 


236  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

what  it  is  just  as  well  as  I  know  it.  The  higher  criticism  rests 
on  assumptions,  presuppositions  and  postulates  and  infer- 
ences and  deductions  from  false  premises,  all  of  which  are  sub- 
versive of  the  authority  of  both  Testaments  and  destructive  of 
the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His  apostles  in  the 
Church. 

We  are  not  frightened,  although  we  are  aroused.  If  there 
is  anything  under  heaven  for  which  a  man  and  woman  ought 
to  fight,  it  is  that  eternal  truth  of  God,  which  was  purchased 
by  the  blood  of  God's  dear  Son,  baptized  by  the  consecrating 
Spirit  of  His  grace,  and  which,  like  incorruptible  seed,  is  sown 
by  the  living  God  in  the  hearts  of  His  people,  there  to  germin- 
ate, bloom,  and  bring  forth  fruit  in  time  and  eternity.  And 
wherever  the  Lord  Jesus  has  a  banner  flying  for  that,  you  will 
find  me  there,  with  a  sword,  fighting,  if  it  costs  me  life  and 
everything.  The  time  is  come  when  I  am  obliged  to  make 
choice  between  smiling  and  shaking  hands  with  my  friends, 
and  smiling  and  shaking  hands  with  Jesus.  "  He  that  is  not 
with  Me  is  against  Me ; "  and,  when  it  comes  to  that, 
whether  I  shall  let  Jesus  go  and  be  silent  about  Him  and 
His  truth,  or  let  my  friend,  the  professor,  go,  I  say  to  you, 
beloved  professor,  the  choice  is  neither  doubtful  nor  diffi- 
cult. 

The  time  is  coming  when  that  bright  sun  of  to-day  will 
gather  blackness,  and  the  moon  will  lose  the  sheen  of  her 
splendor  and  turn  into  blood,  and  the  stars  in  the  vault  of 
heaven  will  disappear,  and  convulsions  will  shake  this  entire 
world.  The  three  that  glitter  in  the  belt  of  Orion  will  pale 
away,  and  Alps  and  Apennines  uprooted  from  their  base  will 
go  dancing  to  plunge  headlong  into  the  Rockies  rushing  to 
meet  them.  But  high  over  all  the  wreck  of  sublunary  things, 
this  Word  of  God,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  shall  stand, 
immortal,  immovable,  unchangeable,  a  monument  of  all  the 
attributes  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  a  testimony  of  love, 
and  of  grace,  and  of  truth  to  His  people  now,  and  to  His  people 
hereafter.  And  I  heard  a  voice  saying  to  me,  "  Cry ;  "  and  I 
said,  "  What  shall  I  cry?"  The  higher  criticism  is  grass,  and 


VS.   THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  237 

the  goodness  thereof  is  as  the  flower* of  the  field.  The  grass 
withereth  and  the  flower  thereof  fadeth.  Why?  "Because  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  bloweth  upon  it."  Surely  the  Higher  Criticism  is 
grass,  but  "  the  Word  of  our  God  shall  stand  forever." 

Sir  William  Dawson,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
scientists  of  our  day,  in  a  recent  address  to  a  band 
of  theological  students,  among  other  good  things 
said  : 

I  have  read  recently,  I  confess  with  feelings  of  contempt,  discus- 
sions respecting  the  supposed  limitations  of  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Did  he  know  the  data  of  Modern  Criticism  ?  Was  he  ac- 
quainted with  the  discoveries  of  modern  science  ?  The  fly  alighting 
on  my  hand  might  as  well  attempt  to  understand  the  thoughts  pass- 
ing through  my  mind  as  criticism  to  gauge  in  this  way  the  mind  of 
Christ.  To  me,  as  a  student  for  fifty  years  of  nature,  of  man,  and 
of  the  Bible,  such  discussions  seem  most  frivolous,  since  our  Lord's 
knowledge,  as  we  have  it  in  his  reported  discourses,  is  altogether 
above  and  beyond  our  science  and  philosophy  ;  transcending  them 
as  much  as  the  vision  of  an  astronomer,  armed  with  one  of  the  great 
telescopes  of  our  time,  transcends  the  unaided  vision  of  a  gnat. 
Christ  views  things  from  a  standpoint  of  his  own  and  through  a 
different  medium  from  the  atmosphere  of  this  world.  His  difficulty 
appears  to  be  to  convey  heavenly  thoughts  to  us  through  the  imper- 
fect language  in  which  we  speak  of  earthly  thoughts. 

That  most  eminent  archaeologist,  Professor  A. 
H.  Sayce,  recently  said  : 

I  do  not  think  that  the  Higher  Critics  have  established  any- 
thing beyond  the  composite  authorship  of  some  of  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  As  regards  their  historical  conclusions  I  am  very  much  at 
issue  with  them.  I  think  they  have  endeavored  to  demolish  the 
history  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  upon  most  insufficient  evi- 
dence, and  in  accordance  with  a  method  which  could  not  and  would 
not  be  applied  to  secular  history,  and  I  further  believe  that  modern 


238  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

discoveries  in  Oriental  archaeology  are  re-establishing  the  history 
which  the  Higher  Critics  supposed  they  have  demolished. 

In  a  recent  issue  of  the  Contemporary  Review, 
Prof.  Sayce  says : 

Let  me  briefly  review  some  of  the  reasons  which  preclude  me  from 
offering  any  longer  the  same  welcome  to  the  method  and  conclusions 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  I  was  prepared  to  accord  to  them 
fifteen  years  ago.  The  pivot  upon  which  the  whole  question  turns 
is  the  Pentateuch,  or  the  Hexateuch,  as  our  critical  friends  would 
make  it.  If  the  Pentateuch  is  really  a  hodge-podge  of  ill-digested 
morsels,  none  of  which  is  older  than  the  age  of  the  Jewish  mon- 
archy, while  a  considerable  part  of  them  is  post-exilic,  we  may  at 
once  give  up  the  contest,  and  follow  our  critical  friends  whitherso- 
ever they  lead  us.  The  Christian  Church  will  have  erred  grievously 
like  the  Jewish  Church  before  it,  and  the  law  which  our  Lord  came 
to  fulfill,  instead  of  being  the  rock  upon  which  the  faith  of  Israel 
was  founded,  will  have  been  the  product  of  religious  degeneracy  and 
decay.  Moses  will  vanish,  no  man  knoweth  where,  like  his  sepul- 
chre in  the  land  of  Moab,  and  the  history  of  the  patriarchs,  and  of 
the  wanderings  in  the  desert  will  become  a  mere  series  of  myths 
and  popular  legends.  Israel,  according  to  our  newest  lights,  has  no 
history  before  its  settlement  in  Canaan. 

This,  then,  is  the  latest  pronouncement  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism. The  Pentateuch,  along  with  the  Book  of  Joshua,  is  a  sort 
of  literary  hash  ;  hardly  a  fragment  of  it  was  in  existence  before  the 
days  of  Josiah  ;  and  the  history  which  twenty  centuries  have  believed 
they  found  in  it  is  little  more  than  a  delusion  and  a  fraud.  Israel 
and  its  religion  lose  the  background  of  their  history  ;  and  the  only 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  which  was  received  by  the 
Samaritans  as  of  supernatural  origin,  and  to  which  the  Jewish 
Church  attached  a  special  sanctity,  is  made  later  in  date  and  inferior 
in  veracity  to  a  considerable  part  of  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament 
canon. 

Such  revolutionary  doctrines  require  a  good  deal  of  evidence  to 
support  them.  But  what  do  we  actually  find  ?  Primarily  an  "  anal- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS. 


ysis "  by  certain  Western  scholars  in  the  nineteenth  century  of 
what  are  alleged  to  be  the  original  elements  of  the  text.  The  whole 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  sliced  up  into  minute  fragments,  each  of  which 
is  ticketed  with  a  kind  of  algebraic  symbol.  The  beginning  of  a 
verse  is  ascribed  to  one  writer  or  "  source,"  t.he  middle  of  it  to  an- 
other, the  end  of  it  to  a  third.  The  critic  knows  exactly  what  each 
author  wrote  or  pieced  together,  where  "  J  "  and  "  E  "  dovetail  into 
one  another,  or  where  "  P  "  breaks  off  and  "  D"  commences.  That 
this  should  sometimes  happen  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  is  of  little 
consequence.  The  critic  is  as  cocksure  of  his  analysis  as  he  is  of  the 
approximate  age  to  which  each  writer  or  redactor  should  be  assigned. 
A  "  polychromatic  edition  of  the  Old  Testament "  is  even  being 
published  in  America,  in  which  the  "eminent  biblical  scholars  of 
Europe  and  America  "  exhaust  all  the  colors  of  the  rainbow  in  the 
effort  to  represent  the  literary  mosaic  work  of  the  ancient  Hebrew 
books. 

Surely  I  am  right  in  saying  that  such  criticism  is  extravagant. 
Conceive  of  a  similar  "  analysis  "  being  applied  to  any  English  book, 
say  of  the  Elizabethan  era.  Even  in  the  case  of  a  modern  English 
work,  like  a  novel  of  Besant  and  Rice,  where  we  know  that  there  is 
a  dual  authorship,  the  attempt  to  separate  and  distinguish  between 
the  two  authors  would  be  futile  and  impossible.  And  yet  English  is 
a  language  which  we  all  speak  and  profess  to  know,  and  English 
literature  is  almost  limitless  in  extent.  The  student  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is  in  a  very  different  position.  The  Hebrew  literature  that 
has  come  down  to  him  is  but  a  fragment  of  what  once  existed,  and 
the  interpretation  of  a  good  deal  of  it  is  doubtful.  Our  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  language  is  in  the  highest  degree  imperfect ;  our 
Hebrew  lexicons  contain  but  a  fraction  of  the  words  once  possessed 
by  it,  and  the  meaning  of  many  of  the  words  which  have  been  pre- 
served, as  well  as  of  the  idioms  of  the  grammar,  is  merely  a  matter 
of  conjecture.  When  we  add  to  this  that  the  critics  are  Europeans 
or  Americans,  whose  training  and  modes  of  thought  are  utterly  alien 
from  those  of  the  East,  we  may  well  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
boasted  "  analysis  "  of  the  Pentateuch  is  but  an  ingenious  way  of 
weaving  ropes  out  of  the  sand. 


240  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Yet  this  is  the  result  in  which  years  of  learned  labor  and  acute  in- 
vestigation have  landed  the  "  critic."  We  have,  therefore,  good 
reason  for  doubting  the  adequacy  or  legitimacy  of  his  method.  A 
method  which  leads  us  to  a  conclusion  which  is  condemned  by  com- 
mon sense  cannot  be  a  sound  one.  And  a  little  consideration  will 
show  that  it  is  not. 

The   counter-proof  presented  by  archaeology  is  of  three   kinds. 
First  of  all  we  have  learned  not  only  that  Moses  could  have  written 
the  Pentateuch,  but  that  it  would  have  been  something  like  a  mira- 
cle if  he  had  not  done  so.     We   have   long  known  that  the  use  of 
writing  for  literary  purposes  is  immensely  old  in  both   Egypt  and 
Babylonia.     Egypt  was  emphatically  a  land  of  scribes  and  readers, 
and  so,  too,  was  Babylonia.     Already,  in  the   days  of  the  Old  Em- 
pire, the  Egyptian  hieroglyphs  have  developed  into  a  cursive  hand, 
while  the  Babylonian  cities  had  their  libraries  of  clay  books  centu- 
ries  before  the  Bible  tells  us  that  Abraham  was  born  in  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees.     But  we  now  know  a  good  deal  more  than  this.    Thanks 
to  the  discovery  of  the  cuneiform  tablets  of  Tel-el- Amarna  in  Upper 
Egypt,  we  now  know  that  in  the  century  before  the  exodus  people 
were   reading   and   writing    and   corresponding   with    one   another 
throughout  the  civilized  East,  from  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  to 
those  of  the  Nile.     And  this  was  not  all.     The  correspondence  was 
carried  on  in  the  cuneiform  characters,  and  for  the  most  part  in  the 
language  of  Babylonia,  necessitating  the  existence  of  schools  where 
the  foreign  language  and  script  could  be  taught  and  learned.     What 
this  means  can  be  realized  only  by  those  who  have  studied  the  vast 
and  complicated  Babylonia  syllabary,  with  the  two  languages,  Sem- 
itic and  Sumerian,  which  a  knowledge  of  it  implies.     The  center  of 
all  this  literary  activity  was  Canaan.     At  one  time  that  country  had 
been  under  the  influence  and  domination  of  Babylonia,  but  in  the 
age  of  the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters  it  had  become  an  Egyptian  prov- 
ince.    A  considerable  number  of  the  letters  were  written  by  Canaan- 
ites,  and  they  show  that  a  knowledge  of  reading  and  writing  must 
have  been  widely  spread  throughout  the  land.     Libraries  and  ar- 
chive chambers  existed,  like  those  of  Babylonia,  and  editions  of  Baby- 
lonian literary  works  were  made  for  them.     In  fact,  Canaan,  in  the 


PS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  241 

Mosaic  age,  like  the  countries  which  surrounded  it,  was  fully  as 
literary  as  was  Europe  in  the  time  of  Renaissance. 

Can  we  imagine  that  in  the  midst  of  all  this  literary  knowledge 
and  activity  the  Israelites  alone  should  have  remained  illiterate  ?  To 
suppose,  as  my  friend  Dr.  Neubauer  puts  it,  that  they  alone  were 
asleep  while  the  rest  of  the  world  in  which  they  lived  was  wide 
awake,  is  to  conjure  up  a  miracle  greater  than  any  of  those  which 
the  traditional  view  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  calls  upon  us 
to  believe.  And  if  it  is  alleged  that  Moses  did,  indeed,  write  a 
Pentateuch,  but  that  it  has  disappeared  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  tattered  fragments  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  we  may  reasonably 
ask  what  became  of  it,  and  why  should  the  contemporaneous  history 
it  recorded  have  been  superseded  by  the  myths  and  legends  of  a 
later  day?  The  Higher  Criticism  asserts  that  there  was  no  writ- 
ing, and,  therefore,  no  history,  in  Israel  before  the  age  of  Samuel. 
Oriental  archaeology,  with  no  less  emphasis,  maintains  that  the 
Israelites  must  have  known  how  to  read  and  write  before  their  settle- 
ment in  Canaan. 

Secondly,  a  study  of  the  literature  handed  down  to  us  by  the 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  kinsfolk  of  the  Israelites  tells  strongly 
against  the  disintegration  theory  of  the  Bible  critics.  We  find  in  it 
no  such  slicing  and  fixing  together  of  ill-assorted  fragments  as  has  been 
discovered  in  the  Pentateuch.  There  were  no  redactors  in  Assyria 
and  Babylon,  with  scissors  and  paste  and  the  apparatus  of  a  modern 
German  study.  Older  materials  were  indeed  used,  but  they  were 
used  as  similar  materials  were  by  the  Arabic  writers  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  or  by  Herodotus  at  an  earlier  time.  Either  they  were  as- 
similated and  thrown  into  shape  by  the  author  of  the  work  which 
has  come  down  to  us,  or  passages  were  quoted  faithfully  from  them 
and  embodied  in  his  narrative.  Of  slicing  and  patching  there  is  no 
trace.  And  the  faithfulness  of  the  copies  is  astonishing.  Where  a 
word  or  character  has  been  lost  in  the  original  tablet  the  copyist  is 
careful  to  state  there  is  a  "lacuna"  or  a  "  recent  lacuna  ;"  where 
the  form  of  the  original  character  was  doubtful  each  of  its  possible 
later  representatives  is  given.  Even  the  compiler  of  the  Babylonian 
Chronicle,  in  describing  the  great  battle  of  Khalule,  which  laid 


242  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

Babylonia  at  the  feet  of  Sennacherib,  candidly  confesses  that  he 
does  "  not  know  the  year  "  when  it  took  place,  although  the  inscrip- 
tions already  in  our  hands,  fewer  though  they  are  than  those  at  his 
disposal,  enable  us  to  fix  it  with  fair  exactitude.  But  as  no  positive 
statement  of  the  matter  lay  before  him,  the  chronicler  earnestly  avows 
his  ignorance.  This  was  the  way  in  which  history  was  written 
among  the  Babylonian  kinsmen  of  the  Jews.  After  this,  is  it  sur- 
prising that  my  brother  Assyriologist,  the  illustrious  Orientalist, 
Prof.  Hommel,  should  declare  his  belief  in  the  literary  honesty  of 
the  Pentateuch,  or  should  maintain  that  while  there  is  evidence  of 
the  use  of  older  documents  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  it  passes  the  wit 
of  man  to  separate  and  distinguish  them  ?  The  evidence  for  their 
existence  is  historical,  and  not  linguistic. 

Thirdly,  the  narratives  which  the  Higher  Criticism  had  pro- 
nounced to  be  the  unhistorical  figments  of  popular  tradition  are  be- 
ing shown  by  archaeological  discovery  to  be  historical  after  all. 
Contemporaneous  monuments  are  continually  coming  to  light,  which 
prove  that  in  the  story  of  the  patriarchs  and  of  the  exodus  we  have 
truth  and  not  legend.  The  Higher  Criticism  was  triumphant  only 
so  long  as  the  scientific  instrument  of  comparison  could  not  be 
employed  against  it. 

I  have  dealt  elsewhere  with  the  monumental  corroboration  of  the 
histories  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch.  Here  I  have  no  space 'to  do 
more  than  refer  to  them,  and  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  most 
uncompromising  opponents  of  the  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
are  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  foremost  students  of  Assyrian  and 
Egyptian  antiquity.  In  truth,  those  of  us  who  have  devoted  our 
lives  to  the  archaeology  of  the  ancient  Oriental  world  have  been 
forced  back  into  the  traditional  position,  though  doubtless  with  a 
broader  basis  to  stand  upon  and  clearer  views  of  the  real  signifi- 
cation of  the  Biblical  text.  Year  by  year,  almost  month  by  month, 
fresh  discoveries  are  breaking  in  upon  us,  each  more  marvelous  than 
the  last,  but  all,  as  regards  the  Pentateuch,  in  favor  of  the  old, 
rather  than  of  the  ne%v  teaching.  The  story  of  the  campaign  of 
Chedor-laomer  and  his  Babylonian  allies  against  the  Canaanitish 
princes  has  been  fully  confirmed,  and  now  Mr.  Pinches  has  found 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  243 

the  name  of  Kudur-lagamar,  or  Chedor-laomer,  as  well  as  that  of 
his  ally,  Tudghal,  or  Tidal.  That  Canaan  was  overrun  by  Babylo- 
nian arms  and  influence  long  before  the  age  of  Abraham  was  already 
known.  This  summer  Prof.  Hommel  has  discovered  that  Ine  Sin, 
who  ruled  over  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  centuries  before  the  Hebrew 
patriarch  was  born  there,  captured  the  city  of  Zemar,  in  Phoenicia, 
while  his  daughter  was  high  priestess  of  Anzan,  or  Elam,  and  of 
Northern  Syria.  Contract  tablets,  drawn  up  and  dated  in  the  reigns 
of  Eri-Aku,  or  Arioch  of  Ellasar,  and  of  other  Babylonian  kings  of 
the  same  period,  contain  Hebrew  names  which  indicate  that  a 
Hebrew-speaking  population  was  settled  in  Babylonia  at  the  time. 
Nay,  more,  the  names  of  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  Abram,  Jacob  (-el) 
and  Joseph  (-el)  have  actually  been  met  with  by  Mr.  Pinches  among 
those  of  witnesses  to  the  deeds,  while  the  kings  of  the  dynasty  which 
was  governing  Ur  in  the  age  of  Chedor-laomer  and  Arioch  bear 
names  which  are  not  Babylonian,  but  which  are  at  once  Hebrew  and 
South  Arabian.  What  a  commentary  this  is  upon  the  statement  of 
Genesis  that  Eber  begat  two  sons,  one  of  whom  was  the  ancestor  of 
the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  the  other  of  the  tribes  of  Southern  Arabia ! 
But  Oriental  archaeology  can  go  further  than  prove  that  Moses 
could,  after  all,  have  written  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  the  narratives 
contained  in  it  are  derived  from  documents  contemporaneous  with 
the  events  they  record.  It  can  further  show  that  there  is  no  one 
else  so  likely  to  have  written  it  as  the  great  leader  and  legislator  of 
Israel,  to  whom  after  ages  agreed  in  ascribing  the  written  law. 
Let  us  take,  for  example,  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  in  which  the 
geography  of  the  Oriental  world  is  described.  There  we  are  told 
that  Canaan  was  the  brother  of  Mizraim,  or  Egypt.  The  assertion 
was  strictly  true  as  long  as  Canaan  was  a  province  of  Egypt ;  when 
it  ceased  to  be  so  the  statement  was  not  only  true  no  longer,  it  was 
contrary  to  the  daily  experience  and  political  beliefs  of  every  inhabi- 
tant of  Palestine.  But  it  was  only  during  the  rule  of  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  Egyptian  dynasties  that  Canaan  obeyed  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Pharaohs.  With  the  fall  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty  it 
was  separated  from  the  monarchy  on  the  Nile,  not  to  be  again  united 
to  it,  except  during  the  short  space  of  years  that  followed  the  death 


244  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

of  Josiah.     After  the  Mosaic  age  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  writer 
coupling  Canaan  and  Egypt  together. 

If,  then,  I  were  to  be  asked  if  I  believe  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  I  should  answer  that  such  a  belief  seems  to  me  to  in- 
volve considerably  fewer  difficulties  than  does  the  contrary  belief  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.  Of  course  such  a  belief  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  the  Hebrew  legislator  wrote  the  Pentateuch  precisely  in  the 
form  in  which  we  now  possess  it.  It  does  not  exclude  the  fact  of  later 
revisions  or  the  addition  of  editorial  notes.  Jewish  tradition  avers  that 
in  its  present  form  the  Pentateuch  has  come  to  us  from  Ezra  and 
the  men  of  the  great  Synagogue,  and  the  doubts  that  have  been  cast 
upon  the  tradition  savor  of  hypercriticism.  But  I  see  no  reason  for 
denying  that  the  Pentateuch  is  substantially  the  work  of  Moses. 

And  against  the  counter-evidence  of  archaeology  what  has  the 
Higher  Criticism  to  bring  forward?  Merely  linguistic  argu- 
ments. Lists  of  words  and  expressions  have  been  compiled  from  the 
imperfect  literature  of  an  imperfectly  known  language,  and  inter- 
preted by  modern  Europeans  in  accordance  with  certain  documen- 
tary hypotheses.  I  have  been  a  student  of  language  and  languages 
all  my  life,  and  the  study  has  made  me  very  skeptical  as  to  the  his- 
torical and  literary  conclusions  that  can  be  drawn  from  linguistic 
testimony  alone.  When  we  endeavor  to  extract  other  than  linguis- 
tic conclusions  from  linguistic  premises  we  generally  go  astray. 

But  even  if  the  archaeological  and  linguistic  evidence  should  be 
held  to  neutralize  one  another,  there  is  one  tremendous  fact  to  which 
the  Higher  Critics  in  this  country  resolutely  close  their  eyes,  but 
which  ought  to  be  more  than  sufficient  to  weigh  down  all  the  lists  of 
words  and  idioms  that  were  ever  marshaled  together.  Against  the 
evidence  of  the  lists  is  the  evidence  of  the  doctrine  and  tradition  of 
the  Christian  Church  throughout  the  eighteen  centuries  of  its  exist- 
ence. And  those  of  us  who  believe  that,  in  accordance  with  the 
promise  of  its  divine  Founder,  the  Spirit  of  God  has  been  in  the 
Church,  guiding  it  into  "all  truth,"  find  it  impossible  to  believe  at 
the  same  time  that  our  new  teachers  can  be  right.  The  same  method 
and  arguments  which  have  made  of  the  Peutateuch  a  later  and  un- 
trustworthy compilation,  whose  divine  origin  and  character  are  dis- 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  245 

cernible  only  to  the  critics  themselves,  would,  if  applied  to  the  Gos- 
pels, end  in  the  same  results.  In  this  countiy,  it  is  true,  our  critical 
friends  have  hitherto  kept  their  faces  steadily  averted  from  the  New 
Testament,  but  the  Protestant  critics  of  the  Continent  have  been  less 
timid  or  prudent,  and  the  way  along  which  they  should  walk  has 
long  ago  been  pointed  out  to  them  by  the  Tubingen  school.  And 
even  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  consequences  of 
the  "critical"  position  are  serious  enough.  It  is  not  only  that  the 
conception  of  the  Mosaic  law  which  lies  at  the  back  of  our  own  re- 
ligion, which  was  assumed  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  and  which 
has  been  held  ever  since  by  the  Christian  Church,  is  swallowed  up 
in  chaotic  darkness  ;  we  are  forced  to  assign  the  origin  of  the  belief 
in  the  divine  message  and  supernatural  authority  of  the  law  to  suc- 
cessful fraud.  I  know  we  are  told  that  what  would  be  fraud  in 
modern  Europe  was  not  fraud  in  ancient  Israel,  and  that  with  an 
improvement  in  manners  and  education  has  come  an  improvement 
in  morals.  But  the  question  is  not  about  ancient  Israel  and  its  ideas  of 
morality,  but  about  the  immutable  God,  under  whose  inspiration,  if 
we  are  to  follow  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  Christianity,  the  law  was 
given  to  Israel.  The  Higher  Critics  never  seem  to  me  to  realize 
that  their  conclusions  are  opposed  to  the  great  practical  fact  of  the 
existence  of  traditional  Christianity,  and  that  against  this  fact  they 
have  nothing  to  set  except  the  linguistic  speculations  of  a  few  indi- 
vidual scholars.  It  is  not  Athanasius  against  the  world,  but  Nes- 
torius  against  the  Church.  On  the  one  side  we  have  a  body  of 
doctrine,  which  has  been  the  support  in  life  and  the  refuge  in  death 
of  millions  of  men  of  all  nationalities  and  grades  of  mind,  which 
has  been  witnessed  to  by  saints  and  martyrs,  which  has  conquered 
first  the  Roman  Empire  and  then  the  barbarians  who  destroyed  it, 
and  which  has  brought  a  message  of  peace  and  good  will  to  suffering 
humanity.  On  the  other  side  there  is  a  handful  of  critics,  with 
their  lists  of  words  and  polychromatic  Bibles.  And  yet  the  Higher 
Criticism  has  never  saved  any  souls  or  healed  any  bodies. 

Why  is  it  so  few  of  our  religious  periodicals  have 
even  noticed  this  most  important  testimony  of  this 


346  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

most  eminent  archaeologist,  supported  as  it  is  by 
Prof.  Hommel,  the  illustrious  Orientalist,  and  all  of 
the  foremost  students  of  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  an- 
tiquity ?  Is  it  not  strikingly  significant  ?  Had 
Prof.  Sayce's  testimony  been  favorable  to  the 
Higher  Criticism,  would  not  our  Church  papers  and 
magazines  that  now  ignore  this  testimony  have 
noticed  it  and  given  it  much  space  ?  The  critics 
say  we  are  seeking  light,  and  yet  they  close  their 
eyes  and  turn  from  this  light  that  shines  as  brightly 
as  the  noonday.  They  seem  now  rather  to  be  de- 
fending their  "  Dearly  bought  scientific  method,"  as 
Kuenen  puts  it,  than  seeking  confirmations  of  the 
truth  of  God's  holy  Word. 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  247 

CHAPTER   XX. 

THE  JEW  AND  THE  BIBLE. 

"Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall 
not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled "  (Matt. 
24:  34). 

The  things  mentioned  in  this  passage  are  the  sur- 
prising and  extraordinary  events  with  which  "  this 
present  evil  world  "  (awn)  shall  be  terminated. 

The  word  "  generation  "  signifies  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple. Webster  defines  it  as  "A  family,  a  race,  a 
stock,  a  breed."  That  these  definitions  are  good  is 
evident  from  Psalm  12:7;  14 :  5  ;  22 :  30 ;  78  :  1 5  ; 
and  112:  2.  Also  Luke  16:  8,  and  I  Peter  2:  9. 

The  word  genea,  which  is  here  rendered  genera- 
tion, is  rendered  "time"  in  Acts  14:  16,  and  15: 
21 ;  "ages"  in  Eph.  3:  3,  31;  and  "nation"  in 
Phil.  2:  15. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says :  "  There  is  high  author- 
ity for  making  '  this  generation '  here  and  in  the 
parallel  passages.  Mark  13:  30,  and  Luke  21:  32, 
refer  to  Israel  as  a  people  or  race ;  in  this  case  the 
meaning  would  be  that  the  Jews  would  not  cease  to 
be  a  distinct  people  until  his  predictions  were  ful- 
filled." (Systematic  Theology,  vol.  3,  p.  799.) 

Peter  the  Great  once  asked  his  chaplain  to  give 
him  "  one  word  "  that  would  prove  the  religion  of 
the  Bible  to  be  divine.  After  a  few  moments'  re- 
flection the  chaplain  replied,  "  Israel !  "  The  king 


248  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICS 

said,  "  I  will  think  about  it."  Some  days  afterward 
he  met  the  chaplain  and  said,  "  Your  word  is  alto- 
gether convincing  !  "  The  great  monarch  was  quite 
familiar  enough  with  the  laws  and  history  of  nations 
to  know  that  Israel's  preservation  could  not  be  ac- 
counted for  except  upon  the  ground  of  divine  inter- 
position. 

All  the  great  nations  contemporaneous  with  Is- 
rael's earliest  history,  such  as  Egypt,  Assyria,  and 
Babylon ;  and  the  later  great  nations,  as  Greece  and 
Rome,  lie  buried  under  the  dust  of  centuries.  But 
Israel,  though  scattered  among  the  nations  since 
the  Maccabean  reign,  and  persecuted  and  oppressed 
in  the  most  cruel  and  atrocious  manner,  still  pre- 
serves, amidst  all  the  social,  religious,  and  political 
convulsions  of  these  centuries,  her  distinguishing 
peculiarities  and  characteristics  as  a  people. 

The  apostle  Paul  in  writing  to  the  Romans  asks 
the  question,  "  What  advantage,  then,  hath  the 
Jew?"  and  then  answers  in  these  words,  "Chiefly 
because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles 
of  God"  (Rom.  3:  1,2).  We  are  here  informed 
that  the  Jews  are  the  custodians  of  the  sacred  ora- 
cles. "The  word  of  the  Lord  endureth  forever." 
See  i  Peter  1 :  23-25,  and  Isa.  40:  6-8.  Since  the 
Word  of  God  is  to  stand  forever,  its  custodians  must 
also  be  preserved.  This  wonderful  people  shall  not 
cease  to  exist,  as  such,  until  all  the  wonderful 
things  predicted  in  this  wonderful  Book,  for  this 
age,  are  consummated.  A  people  divinely  chosen 


VS.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS.  249 

and  miraculously  preserved  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
serving the  God-given  Book.  "  For  I  could  wish 
that  I  myself  were  anathema  from  Christ  for  my 
brethren's  sake,  my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh : 
who  are  Israelites ;  whose  is  the  adoption,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  covenants  [testaments],  and  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
promises ;  whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  is 
Christ  as  concerning  the  flesh,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever.  Amen  "  (Rom.  9:  3-5)- 


ANTI-HIGHER  CRITICISM; 

Or, 

Testimony  to  the  Infallibility  of  the  Bible, 


Edited  and  Compiled  by 

L.  W.  MUNHALL,  MJL,  D  JX 


Crown  8vo.     Cloth.    358   Pages.    Price,  $1.50. 

"  It  is  excellent." — Methodist  Review. 

"  The  volume  is  calculated  to  perform  a  very  useful  ministry." — 
The  Christian,  London. 

"  This  is  emphatically  a  book  for  the  times.  We  strongly  com- 
mend it." — Methodist  Magazine. 

"  The  book  is  of  great  value.  It  is  strong,  timely,  and  helpful." 
—  Western  Recorder. 

"  A  thoroughly  masterful  reply  to  all  the  points  of  objection 
raised  by  higher  criticism,  so  called." — Religious  Telescope. 

"  A  solidly  instructive  and  interesting  volume.  We  heartily  rec- 
ommend it  to  all  ministers." — German  Theological  Bimonthly  Re- 
view. 

"  The  whole  volume  gives  in  condensed  form  a  large  amount  of 
valuable  material,  and  will  be  profitable  both  to  the  general  reader 
and  to  the  student." — Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"  It  repels  the  assaults  .made  upon  the  Scriptures,  and  reasserts 
the  infallibility  and  plenary  inspiration  of  the  holy  Book  with  great 
clearness  and  intelligence." — The  Presbyterian. 

"We  can  commend  the  reader  to  buy  said  solid,  interesting,  and 
instructive  work,  and  he  will  not  be  sorry  if  he  completes  its  study." 
— Bimonthly  Journal  for  Theology  and  the  Church. 

"  The  authors  stand  in  the  front  rank  for  their  ability  and  schol- 
arship. The  addresses  themselves  are  scholarly,  comprehensive, 
and  convincing,  and  to  every  honest,  unprejudiced  mind  will  carry 
conviction.  Dr.  Munhall  has  done  a  good  service  in  placing  them 
before  the  public  in  this  convenient  and  lasting  form,  and  especially 
at  this  time  when  infidelity  is  so  rampant  and  specious  in  its 
assaults.  To  Bible  students  especially  we  commend  this  volume,  as 
an  answer  to  the  rationalistic  publications  which  are  being  poured 
out  like  a  flood  all  through  the  land,  satisfied  that  the  false  has 
only  to  be  confronted  by  the  truth  to  reveal  at  once  its  baseness 
and  falsity." — Christian  at  Work. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  995  237     5 


